Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021. METHODS: Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. RESULTS: At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

European expert recommendations on clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices for children.

Several high-risk medical devices for children have become unavailable in the European Union (EU), since requirements and costs for device certification increased markedly due to the EU Medical Device Regulation. The EU-funded CORE-MD project held a workshop in January 2023 with experts from various child health specialties, representatives of European paediatric associations, a regulatory authority and the European Commission Directorate General Health and Food Safety. A virtual follow-up meeting took place in March 2023. We developed recommendations for investigation of high-risk medical devices for children building on participants' expertise and results of a scoping review of clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children. Approaches for evaluating and certifying high-risk medical devices for market introduction are proposed.

Real-world evidence in health technology assessment of high-risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?

Health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices (MDs) increasingly rely on real-world evidence (RWE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the type and the quality of the evidence used to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of high risk MDs (Class III) by HTA agencies in Europe (four European HTA agencies and EUnetHTA), with particular focus on RWE. Data were extracted from HTA reports on the type of evidence demonstrating (cost-)effectiveness, and the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. 25 HTA reports were included that incorporated 28 observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Half of the studies (46%) took important confounding and/or effect modifying variables into account in the design and/or analyses. The most common way of including confounders and/or effect modifiers was through multivariable regression analysis. Other methods, such as propensity score matching, were rarely employed. Furthermore, meaningful analyses to test key assumptions were largely omitted. Resulting recommendations from HTA agencies on MDs is therefore (partially) based on evidence which is riddled with uncertainty. Considering the increasing importance of RWE it is important that the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness are systematically assessed when used in decision-making.

Characteristics and use of patient-reported outcomes of clinical trials for high-risk neurological medical devices that received FDA premarket approval from 2001 to 2022.

Neurological medical devices have revolutionized the management of neurological disorders, providing diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring solutions. High-risk neurological devices, such as deep brain stimulation and neurostimulators, offer groundbreaking treatments, emphasizing patient benefits while considering risks. To gain FDA approval, high-risk Class III devices necessitate premarket approval (PMA) applications with pivotal clinical trials, often assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This article analyzes FDA-approved high-risk neurological devices from 2001 to 2022 via the PMA pathway. It explores device characteristics and pivotal clinical trials, and PRO incorporation. Of the 23 identified devices, pain neurology devices (30.4 %) predominated. All devices were therapeutic, with varying study designs. Pain neurology devices notably emphasized PRO endpoints as expected. This study underscores the significance of PROs in assessing device efficacy and safety, offering insights into regulatory processes and patient-centered care in neurological disorder management.