Easing Medical Device Regulatory Oversight: The FDA and Testing Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The FDA already subjects most medical devices to much less stringent approval requirements than drugs and biologics, and attempts to speed up rollout during the COVID crisis have been problematic. Agency decisions, including to allow antibody test marketing without emergency use authorization or review, and the back-and-forth guidance on laboratory-developed tests, have met harsh criticism and unreliable results. Though the long-term results of these decisions are unclear, the FDA's credibility, reliability, and commitment to safety are threatened by even further lessening medical device regulatory oversight during the coronavirus pandemic. The relaxed and fix-it-later approach to many of the FDA's public health emergency decisions regarding medical devices reflect the ongoing criticisms of medical device regulation in general, specifically the 510(k) process and laboratory developed test regulation, offering a point of reflection towards reform. Adaptive legislation and a risk-based and evidentiary approach to premarket and postmarket review can begin to address these issues both generally and in an emergency context.

Strategies for antimicrobial peptide coatings on medical devices: a review and regulatory science perspective.

Indwelling and implanted medical devices are subject to contamination by microbial pathogens during surgery, insertion or injection, and ongoing use, often resulting in severe nosocomial infections. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) offer a promising alternative to conventional antibiotics to reduce the incidence of such infections, as they exhibit broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, microbial biofilms, fungi, and viruses. In this review-perspective, we first provide an overview of the progress made in this field over the past decade with an emphasis on the local release of AMPs from implant surfaces and immobilization strategies for incorporating these agents into a wide range of medical device materials. We then provide a regulatory science perspective addressing the characterization and testing of AMP coatings based on the type of immobilization strategy used with a focus on the US market regulatory niche. Our goal is to help narrow the gulf between academic studies and preclinical testing, as well as to support a future literature base in order to develop the regulatory science of antimicrobial coatings.

The impact of medical device regulation on hospital doctors who prescribe and manufacture custom-made devices.

The 1990s saw the implementation of three European directives that aimed to standardise medical device legislation. EU regulations replace and repeal these directives, to improve the safety, effectiveness and traceability of medical devices. This article discusses the implications of the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation) for hospital doctors who prescribe and manufacture custom-made medical devices.

Regulación de dispositivos médicos en el contexto de COVID-19 / Regulation of medical devices in the context of COVID-19

El IMDRF es un grupo voluntario de reguladores de dispositivos médicos de todo el mundo que se han unido con el objetivo de acelerar la armonización y convergencia reguladora internacional de dispositivos médicos. Los miembros actuales son Australia, Brasil, Canadá, China, la Unión Europea, Japón, Rusia, Singapur, Corea del Sur y Estados Unidos de América quienes cuentan con sistemas regulatorios consolidados para dispositivos médicos

Funciones y responsabilidades del farmacéutico de hospital con los medicamentos CAR-T / Hospital pharmacist's roles and responsibilities with CAR-T medicines

El desarrollo y la comercialización de medicamentos de terapia celular con células T con receptor de antígeno quimérico (CAR-T) suponen un nuevo reto para la farmacia hospitalaria en España. El objetivo de este artículo es revisar los aspectos clave de estos medicamentos y describir el papel del farmacéutico oncohematológico dentro del equipo clínico multidisciplinar en las diferentes fases del proceso transversal que implica el tratamiento con medicamentos CAR-T, desde la indicación hasta el seguimiento a corto y largo plazo de los pacientes tratados con este tipo de terapias, con una importante mención al manejo de sus principales efectos adversos. La terapia tipo CAR-T ofrece al farmacéutico hospitalario la oportunidad de trabajar en estrecha colaboración con el resto de los profesionales clínicos implicados en el proceso, permitiendo su contribución en el desarrollo de procedimientos, guías de práctica clínica de abordaje global y estableciendo puntos de partida para afrontar tratamientos futuros de complejidad similar e incluso mejorar procesos base anteriormente establecidos

The development and commercialization of cell therapy drugs with chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) represent a new challenge for Spain's hospital pharmacy. The aim of this article is to review the key aspects of these medicines and to describe the oncohematological pharmacist's role within the multidisciplinary clinical team. This includes the different phases in the transversal process that involves a therapy with CAR-T medicines, ranging from indication to short and long term follow-up of patients treated with this type of therapy, and emphasizing on the management of its main adverse effects. CAR-T therapy offers the hospital pharmacist the opportunity to work closely with the rest of the clinical professionals involved in the process, allowing their contribution to the development of procedures, clinical practice guidelines of global approach, and establishing starting points when facing future therapies of similar complexity -and even improving previously established basic processes

Regulación actual de los productos sanitarios: ¿es suficiente? / Current medical device regulation: Is that enough?

No disponible

The changing regulatory landscape for biomedical implants and its relationship to withdrawal of some vaginal mesh products.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advancements in biomedical engineering and advanced therapies including tissue engineering products necessitate revisions to the regulation and governance of their production and use to ensure patient safety. In this review, the current regulations and recent improvements on the governance of biomedical devices are reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Current regulations on approval of biomedical devices failed to address some important aspects related to the definition of biocompatibility of medical implants. The main issue was that the failure to establish design requirements for a specific application - in this case, the pelvic floor. Another issue was the lack of knowledge on disease mechanisms leading to an inability to define clear targets for surgical treatment. A clear example of this is the recent vaginal mesh scandal. SUMMARY: Surgical innovations are inherently challenging. It is no surprise that the regulatory landscape lags behind advancements in biomedical technologies. Very recent modifications to the available regulations particularly in Europe aim to establish a robust, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework for medical devices, which ensures patient safety while supporting innovation.

A review of international medical device regulations: Contact lenses and lens care solutions.

Medical devices are under strict regulatory oversight worldwide and such regulations prioritise patient safety and efficacy over anything else. Contact lenses fall under the medical device category - a result of direct contact with the eye. Equally regulated are the contact lens care product solutions, which include cleaning and maintenance solutions and lubricating and rewetting drops. In the USA, it is the FDA Centre for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) overseeing the regulations of medical devices, since 1976. In the European Union, it is the EU Commission responsible for regulating devices in Member States. The categorisation of contact lenses into medical devices is based on their inherent risk to the wearer. Contact lenses are subject to crucial regulatory oversight from concept to clinical evaluation, clinical investigations through to the finished lens product, and finally, strict conditions associated with their marketing approval including post-marketing surveillance. The physiochemical and manufacturing testing, such as biocompatibility testing alongside pre-clinical stability, sterility and microbiological testing are just some of the essential testing lenses must endure. Only through understanding the inherent risks and potential complications that can arise from contact lens wear, can one truly appreciate the need to adhere to strict regulations. The challenge however, lies in the need for more standardised regulations and flexible approaches, ensuring innovative device technologies reach patients in a timely manner without compromising public health and safety. This review highlights some key requirement, differences and similarities between the FDA and EU administrations in the approval of contact lenses.

Reporting Insulin Pump Accuracy: Trumpet Curves According to IEC 60601-2-24 and Beyond.

Accuracy of insulin pump basal rate delivery, if tested according to the standard IEC 60601-2-24 for infusion pumps, shall be presented as a trumpet curve. This way of graphical presentation is common; however, it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted by people. It is often assumed that a trumpet curve shows the error rate as a function of time, thus implying an increasing accuracy in the course of time. On the contrary, the horizontal axis of a trumpet curve shows increasingly long observation windows. In addition, trumpet curves display only extreme values, that is, those windows with minimal and maximal deviation, which might not be representative for the total deviation. This commentary provides information regarding the calculations and the interpretation of trumpet curves and proposes alternative approaches.

The quest for accuracy of blood pressure measuring devices.

The accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measuring devices is fundamental to good practice and scientific research. International guidelines on BP measurement are provided for clinicians who diagnose and treat patients with hypertension, clinical researchers who conduct trials on the efficacy of BP lowering drugs and interventional strategies, epidemiologists who conduct population surveys to determine the demographic consequences of hypertension on society, and researchers who perform meta-analyses on published research to further influence the practice of medicine and the provision of resources. Although the outcomes of the endeavors of all these groups are dependent on the accuracy of BP measurements, the equipment is often of doubtful accuracy and the methodology of measurement is often poorly described and frequently not standardized. Thus, the fundamental element of hypertension evaluation has been largely ignored by both clinical practitioners and scientific researchers. Here, the authors briefly review the development of efforts to improve and validate the accuracy of BP measuring devices and highlight the deficiencies that persist. We conclude that, to protect the public from the serious consequences of inaccurate BP measurements, the following steps are required: (1) regulatory requirement for mandatory independent validation of all BP measuring devices using a universal protocol; (2) accreditation of laboratories for the performance of BP device validations; (3) online evaluation of validation studies with detection of protocol violations prior to publication of results; and (4) establishment of an independent scientific forum for the listing of accurate BP measuring devices.