Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Regulatory Framework for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices: Comparison of Systems in the US and European Union.
Amon, Andreas; Marjenin, Timothy; Duarte, Rui V; Gilligan, Christopher; Thomson, Simon James; Eldabe, Sam; Alesch, François.
Afiliação
  • Amon A; Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: andreasamon@gmx.at.
  • Marjenin T; MCRA, LLC, Washington, DC, USA.
  • Duarte RV; Saluda Medical Pty Ltd, Artarmon, New South Wales, Australia; Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
  • Gilligan C; Division of Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Thomson SJ; Mid and South Essex University Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Southend-on-Sea, UK.
  • Eldabe S; Department of Pain Medicine, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesborough, UK.
  • Alesch F; Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Neuromodulation ; 27(3): 447-454, 2024 Apr.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37306642
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Implantable neurostimulation devices must be authorized before they are placed on the market. For this purpose, requirements, and processes for assessing their fulfillment, have been defined in different jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE:

In this study, we aimed to address differences between the US and European Union (EU) regulatory systems and their relationship to innovation. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A literature review and analysis were conducted using legal texts and guidance documents.

RESULTS:

The US system has one central body, the Food and Drug Administration, whereas the EU system has several bodies with different responsibilities. The devices themselves are divided into risk classes, which are based on the vulnerability of the human body. This risk class determines the intensity of the review by the market authorization body. In addition to the requirements for development, manufacture, and distribution, the device itself must meet technical and clinical requirements. Compliance with technical requirements is indicated by nonclinical laboratory studies. Proof of efficacy is provided by means of clinical investigations. Procedures are defined for reviewing these elements. Once the market authorization process has been completed, the devices can be placed on the market. In the postmarketing phase, the devices must continue to be monitored, and measures must be initiated, if necessary.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both US and EU systems are intended to ensure that only safe and effective devices find their way to and remain on the market. The basic approaches of the two systems are comparable. In detail, however, there are differences in ways these goals are achieved.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Próteses e Implantes Tipo de estudo: Guideline Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Próteses e Implantes Tipo de estudo: Guideline Limite: Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article