Medical device regulation in vascular ageing assessment: a VascAgeNet survey exploring knowledge and perception

BACKGROUND

Regulation has a key role for medical devices throughout their lifecycle aiming to guarantee effectiveness and safety for users. Requirements of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR) have an impact on novel and previously approved systems. Identification of key stakeholders' needs can support effective implementation of MDR improving the translation to clinical practice of vascular ageing assessment. The aim of this work is to explore knowledge and perception of medical device regulatory framework in vascular ageing field.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A survey was developed within VascAgeNet and distributed in the community by means of the EUSurvey platform.

RESULTS

Results were derived from 94 participants (27% clinicians, 62% researchers, 11% companies) and evidenced mostly a fair knowledge of MDR (despite self-judged as poor by 51%). Safety (83%), validation (56%), risk management (50%) were considered relevant and associated with the regulatory process. Structured support and regulatory procedures connected with medical devices in daily practice at the institutional level are lacking (only 33% report availability of a regulatory department).

CONCLUSIONS

Regulation was recognized relevant by the VascAgeNet community and specific support and training in medical device regulatory science was considered important. A direct link with the regulatory sector is not yet easily available.

Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table

Research performed in Europe has driven cardiovascular device innovation. This includes, but is not limited to, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac imaging, transcatheter heart valve implantation, and device therapy of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. An important part of future medical progress involves the evolution of medical technology and the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and machine learning. There is a need to foster an environment conducive to medical technology development and validation so that Europe can continue to play a major role in device innovation while providing high standards of safety. This paper summarizes viewpoints on the topic of device innovation in cardiovascular medicine at the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table, a strategic forum for high-level dialogue to discuss issues related to the future of cardiovascular health in Europe. Devices are developed and improved through an iterative process throughout their lifecycle. Early feasibility studies demonstrate proof of concept and help to optimize the design of a device. If successful, this should ideally be followed by randomized clinical trials comparing novel devices vs. accepted standards of care when available and the collection of post-market real-world evidence through registries. Unfortunately, standardized procedures for feasibility studies across various device categories have not yet been implemented in Europe. Cardiovascular imaging can be used to diagnose and characterize patients for interventions to improve procedural results and to monitor devices long term after implantation. Randomized clinical trials often use cardiac imaging-based inclusion criteria, while less frequently trials randomize patients to compare the diagnostic or prognostic value of different modalities. Applications using machine learning are increasingly important, but specific regulatory standards and pathways remain in development in both Europe and the USA. Standards are also needed for smart devices and digital technologies that support device-driven biomonitoring. Changes in device regulation introduced by the European Union aim to improve clinical evidence, transparency, and safety, but they may impact the speed of innovation, access, and availability. Device development programmes including dialogue on unmet needs and advice on study designs must be driven by a community of physicians, trialists, patients, regulators, payers, and industry to ensure that patients have access to innovative care.

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.

The Challenges in Conducting Economic Evaluations for Rehabilitation Technologies

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) is an important evidentiary component in the decision-making process for the adoption of new healthcare technologies to the healthcare system. Economic evidence is an important consideration in HTAs. Recent systematic reviews in rehabilitation have shown a limited number of economic evaluations and high levels of uncertainty in the results. It is unclear whether there are challenges related to the field of rehabilitation and the technologies used in rehabilitation that inhibit the development of economic evidence.

Methods

In this study, economic evaluations in rehabilitation were reviewed. This was followed by a summary of the latest evidence on the challenges of conducting HTA for medical devices and the relationship with rehabilitation technologies. Finally, several considerations are suggested to improve the HTA of technologies that target rehabilitation. A literature review of Google Scholar and PubMed was conducted to identify reviews in economic evaluations in rehabilitation. A recent review on the barriers to HTA of medical devices in general was also examined to identify similar concerns with rehabilitation technologies.

Results

The challenges identified include the lack of high-quality studies, the interaction between the technology and the user, the short product life cycle, and estimation of efficacy in technologies with multiple target populations.

Conclusion

Overall, many of the challenges in evaluating medical devices also apply to rehabilitation interventions. Further research and discussion on these issues are necessary to increase the clinical evidence for rehabilitation technologies, strengthen the development of HTAs, and facilitate the use of technologies to improve the health of individuals requiring rehabilitation.

Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?

BACKGROUND

The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care.

METHODS

This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment-databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis.

RESULTS

The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development.

Placing patient-reported outcomes at the centre of cardiovascular clinical practice: implications for quality of care and management

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients' own perspectives about their health and medical condition, and there is evidence that their use can lead to improvements in the quality of care and to better-informed clinical decisions. Their application in cardiovascular populations has grown over the past decades. This statement describes what PROs are, and it provides an inventory of disease-specific and domain-specific PROs that have been developed for cardiovascular populations. International standards and quality indices have been published, which can guide the selection of PROs for clinical practice and in clinical trials and research; patients as well as experts in psychometrics should be involved in choosing which are most appropriate. Collaborations are needed to define criteria for using PROs to guide regulatory decisions, and the utility of PROs for comparing and monitoring the quality of care and for allocating resources should be evaluated. New sources for recording PROs include wearable digital health devices, medical registries, and electronic health record. Advice is given for the optimal use of PROs in shared clinical decision-making in cardiovascular medicine, and concerning future directions for their wider application.

The digital journey: 25 years of digital development in electrophysiology from an Europace perspective

AIMS

Over the past 25 years there has been a substantial development in the field of digital electrophysiology (EP) and in parallel a substantial increase in publications on digital cardiology.In this celebratory paper, we provide an overview of the digital field by highlighting publications from the field focusing on the EP Europace journal.

RESULTS

In this journey across the past quarter of a century we follow the development of digital tools commonly used in the clinic spanning from the initiation of digital clinics through the early days of telemonitoring, to wearables, mobile applications, and the use of fully virtual clinics. We then provide a chronicle of the field of artificial intelligence, a regulatory perspective, and at the end of our journey provide a future outlook for digital EP.

CONCLUSION

Over the past 25 years Europace has published a substantial number of papers on digital EP, with a marked expansion in digital publications in recent years.

The New European Medical Device Regulation: Balancing Innovation and Patient Safety

The European Union has introduced stricter provisions for medical devices under the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR). The MDR increases requirements for clinical trial testing for many devices before they can legally be placed on the market and extends requirements for rigorous clinical surveillance of benefits and harms to the entire life cycle of devices. New "expert panels" have been established by the European Commission to advise in the assessment of devices toward certification, and the role of previous "notified bodies" (private companies charged by the Commission with ensuring that manufacturers follow the requirements for device testing) is being expanded. The MDR does not contain a grandfathering clause; thus, all existing medical devices must be recertified under the stricter regulation. The recertification deadline has recently been extended to 2027 or 2028, depending on the device's risk class. Whether most device manufacturers can meet these new requirements is uncertain, and the MDR will likely have important consequences for manufacturers, researchers, clinicians, and patients. Enhanced collaborations between the medical device industry and physician partners will be needed to meet the new requirements in a timely manner to avoid shortages of existing devices and to mitigate barriers to development of new devices.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk: An updated systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety

Objectives

To synthesise the available evidence of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy as an add-on measure to optimal medical therapy (OMT) or as a replacement of hospital stay.

Methods

An update systematic review (SR) of comparative effectiveness and safety of WCD therapy was conducted. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), prospective comparative studies and prospective uncontrolled studies with at least 100 patients. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted.

Results

One RCT (n = 2348) and further eleven observational studies (n = 5345) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. In the only available RCT, the use of the WCD was not statistically associated with a clinical benefit on arrhythmic mortality in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with an ejection fraction of ≤35%. The compliance with WCD therapy was low in the RCT and high in observational studies, with ten observational studies reporting on a daily wear time between 20 and 23.5 h. The range of percentage of patients receiving at least one appropriate shock was 1-4.8% and the rate of first shock success was reported to be 100% in three studies. Serious adverse events (SAEs) such as inappropriate shocks occurred rarely, with between 0% and 2% of patients being inappropriately shocked within ten observational studies. In one of the observational studies, two patients (2%) were allergic to nickel developing skin rash and false alarms occurred in 58 patients (57%) in this study. Another registry study (n = 448) reported milder AEs, such as dermatitis and pressure marks, occurring in 0.9% and 0.2% of enrolled patients, respectively.

Conclusion

The only available RCT failed to show superiority of add-on use of WCD in post MI patients. Observational evidence shows that the compliance with WCD is good, but the evidence is afflicted with selection bias and the inclusion of diverse mixed patient populations diluting the ability to draw indication-specific conclusions on the utility of the device. More comparative data is needed to justify continuing or expanding use of WCD therapy.

Validation of CORE-MD PMS Support Tool: A Novel Strategy for Aggregating Information from Notices of Failures to Support Medical Devices' Post-Market Surveillance

INTRODUCTION

The EU Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 defines new rules for the certification and post-market surveillance of medical devices (MD), including an additional review by Expert Panels of clinical evaluation data for high-risk MD if reports and alerts suggest possibly associated increased risks. Within the EU-funded CORE-MD project, our aim was to develop a tool to support such process in which web-accessible safety notices (SN) are automatically retrieved and aggregated based on their specific MD categories and the European Medical Device Nomenclature (EMDN) classification by applying an Entity Resolution (ER) approach to enrich data integrating different sources. The performance of such approach was tested through a pilot study on the Italian data.

METHODS

Information relevant to 7622 SN from 2009 to 2021 was retrieved from the Italian Ministry of Health website by Web scraping. For incomplete EMDN data (68%), the MD best match was searched within a list of about 1.5 M MD on the Italian market, using Natural Language Processing techniques and pairwise ER. The performance of this approach was tested on the 2440 SN (32%) already provided with the EMDN code as reference standard.

RESULTS

The implemented ER method was able to correctly assign the correct manufacturer to the MD in each SN in 99% of the cases. Moreover, the correct EMDN code at level 1 was assigned in 2382 SN (97.62%), at level 2 in 2366 SN (96.97%) and at level 3 in 2329 SN (95.45%).

CONCLUSION

The proposed approach was able to cope with the incompleteness of the publicly available data in the SN. In this way, grouping of SN relevant to a specific MD category/group/type could be used as possible sentinel for increased rates in reported serious incidents in high-risk MD.

Expanding Quality by Design Principles to Support 3D Printed Medical Device Development Following the Renewed Regulatory Framework in Europe

The vast scope of 3D printing has ignited the production of tailored medical device (MD) development and catalyzed a paradigm shift in the health-care industry, particularly following the COVID pandemic. This review aims to provide an update on the current progress and emerging opportunities for additive manufacturing following the introduction of the new medical device regulation (MDR) within the EU. The advent of early-phase implementation of the Quality by Design (QbD) quality management framework in MD development is a focal point. The application of a regulatory supported QbD concept will ensure successful MD development, as well as pointing out the current challenges of 3D bioprinting. Utilizing a QbD scientific and risk-management approach ensures the acceleration of MD development in a more targeted way by building in all stakeholders' expectations, namely those of the patients, the biomedical industry, and regulatory bodies.

Preparing healthcare, academic institutions and notified bodies for their involvement in the innovation of medical devices under the new European regulation

INTRODUCTION

Favouring innovation by making timely medical technology available to people and by securing patients' safety is a challenge.

AREAS COVERED

The new European medical device regulation (MDR) will have a central implication in the development of new devices and could affect their innovation and availability, as well as discourage investment in research within Europe.

EXPERT OPINION

Start-ups and small companies might not be able to cope with the increasing complexity and the required changes of perspective. Healthcare institutions are facing an increasing availability of complex technologies, while data on their clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness are rarely provided.

A partnership/collaboration between healthcare institutions, academia and private industries will enhance their own specific interests with the common goal of improving overall health and quality of life. The complexity of the subject combined with the variety of specialists and stakeholders involved requires the implementation, in hospital centres of clinical excellence, of units dedicated to the whole path of the medical device innovation. Stakeholders should quickly provide adequate measures to facilitate the complex medical device innovation path under the more stringent MDR aimed to increase safety and quality of care.

Post-market surveillance of medical devices: A review

BACKGROUND

Medical devices (MDs) represent the backbone of the modern healthcare system. Considering their importance in daily medical practice, the process of manufacturing, marketing and usage has to be regulated at all levels. Harmonized evidence-based conformity assessment of MDs during PMS relying on traceability of medical device measurements can contribute to higher reliability of MD performance and consequently to higher reliability of diagnosis and treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This paper discusses issues within MD post-market surveillance (PMS) mechanisms in order to set a path to harmonization of MD PMS.

METHODS

Medline (1980-2021), EBSCO (1991-2021), and PubMed (1980-2021) as well as national and international legislation and standard databases along with reference lists of eligible articles and guidelines of relevant regulatory authorities such as European Commission, Food and Drug Administration were searched for relevant information. Journal articles that contain information regarding PMS methodologies concerning stand-alone medical devices. National and international legislation, standards and guidelines concerning the topic.

RESULTS

The search strategy resulted in 2282 papers. Out of those only 24 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria and were finally included in the review. Papers were grouped per categories: medical device registry, medical device adverse event reporting, and medical device performance evaluation. In addition to journal articles, national and international legislation, standards, and guidelines were reviewed to assess the state of PMS in different regions of the world.

CONCLUSION

Although the regulatory framework prescribes PMS of medical devices, the process itself is not harmonized with international standards. Particularly, conformity assessment of MDs, as an important part of PMS, is not measured and managed in a traceable, evidence-based manner. The lack of harmonization within PMS results in an environment of increased adverse events involving MDs and overall mistrust in medical device diagnosis and treatment results.

Real-World and Regulatory Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging

Recent progress in digital health data recording, advances in computing power, and methodological approaches that extract information from data as artificial intelligence are expected to have a disruptive impact on technology in medicine. One of the potential benefits is the ability to extract new and essential insights from the vast amount of data generated during health care delivery every day. Cardiovascular imaging is boosted by new intelligent automatic methods to manage, process, segment, and analyze petabytes of image data exceeding historical manual capacities. Algorithms that learn from data raise new challenges for regulatory bodies. Partially autonomous behavior and adaptive modifications and a lack of transparency in deriving evidence from complex data pose considerable problems. Controlling new technologies requires new controlling techniques and ongoing regulatory research. All stakeholders must participate in the quest to find a fair balance between innovation and regulation. The regulatory approach to artificial intelligence must be risk-based and resilient. A focus on unknown emerging risks demands continuous surveillance and clinical evaluation during the total product life cycle. Since learning algorithms are data-driven, high-quality data is fundamental for good machine learning practice. Mining, processing, validation, governance, and data control must account for bias, error, inappropriate use, drifts, and shifts, particularly in real-world data. Regulators worldwide are tackling twenty-first century challenges raised by “learning” medical devices. Ethical concerns and regulatory approaches are presented. The paper concludes with a discussion on the future of responsible artificial intelligence.

Evaluation of intervertebral body implant performance using active surveillance of electronic health records

Objectives

To assess the feasibility of using electronic health record (EHR) derived clinical data within an active surveillance setting to evaluate the safety of a novel intervertebral body implant (IVBI) stabilization device.

Design

Retrospective, longitudinal observational cohort study comparing clinical outcomes for patients seen through 1 year following spinal fusion surgery.

Setting

Lahey Health network, which includes academic tertiary hospitals, outpatient clinics, and independent provider offices in the New England region of the USA.

Participants

All spine surgery patients aged 18 or older who underwent thoracic or lumbar spinal arthrodesis surgeries were included.

Main outcome measures

The clinical outcomes of patients treated with the CONCORDE Bullet (CB) interbody spine system (DePuy) between April 2015 and December 2018 were compared with those patients receiving alternative spine stabilization interbody device implants. The primary endpoint was reoperation rate at 1 year, with secondary endpoints including the requirement for blood transfusion during index hospitalization, 1 year rate of any cause hospitalization, 1 year rate of surgical site infection, and mortality at 1 year.

Results

Among the 606 patients undergoing thoracic or lumbar spinal fusion surgery during the study period, 136 received only the CB. In comparison with patients who did not receive the CB, no significant differences were found in the rate of reoperation at 1 year or the rates of secondary safety outcomes.

Conclusions

Data derived from the EHR can be successfully leveraged to assess the safety of IVBI devices, in this case demonstrating no significant differences in the rates of risk-adjusted safety endpoints between patients undergoing spinal surgery with the CB as compared with alternative spinal implants.

Medical Device Regulation: Should We Care About It?

Medical devices are subject to strict regulatory and approval processes to enter the market and to be used by operators and patients. These are needed to guarantee the users’ safety. The different activities of these processes have important implications for all involved stakeholders and for the whole lifecycle of a medical device. The aim of this work is to provide an overview of some key aspects of the new EU Medical Device Regulation and to show why researchers, innovators and clinicians should care about it. Awareness of regulatory requirements can improve the innovation process and its efficiency in terms of both social and ethical impact, but this awareness needs to be raised in the upcoming months and years. One can shortly say “yes, one needs to take care” of the new EU Medical Device Regulation. First and foremost, it is crucial for the sake of the users’ safety, which is the regulation’s intrinsic goal. Second, it should not just be seen as an obstacle for new innovations in the medical domain, but as a chance as it can provide new opportunities.

Decision Support Systems in HF based on Deep Learning Technologies

Purpose of Review

Application of deep learning (DL) is growing in the last years, especially in the healthcare domain. This review presents the current state of DL techniques applied to electronic health record structured data, physiological signals, and imaging modalities for the management of heart failure (HF), focusing in particular on diagnosis, prognosis, and re-hospitalization risk, to explore the level of maturity of DL in this field.

Recent Findings

DL allows a better integration of different data sources to distillate more accurate outcomes in HF patients, thus resulting in better performance when compared to conventional evaluation methods. While applications in image and signal processing for HF diagnosis have reached very high performance, the application of DL to electronic health records and its multisource data for prediction could still be improved, despite the already promising results.

Summary

Embracing the current big data era, DL can improve performance compared to conventional techniques and machine learning approaches. DL algorithms have potential to provide more efficient care and improve outcomes of HF patients, although further investigations are needed to overcome current limitations, including results generalizability and transparency and explicability of the evidences supporting the process.

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

In the European Union (EU), the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent ‘conformity assessment’ organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the Medical Device Directive, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details – which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE–MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024. Here, we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:839-849. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210081

The Impact of Biomedical Engineering on the Development of Minimally Invasive Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

(1) We describe the boundary conditions for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) with the aim to reduce procedure-related patient injury and discomfort. (2) The analysis of the MICS work process and its demand for improved tools and devices is followed by a description of the relevant sub-specialties of bio-medical engineering: electronics, biomechanics, and materials sciences. (3) Innovations can represent a desired adaptation of an existing work process or a radical redesign of procedure and devices such as in transcutaneous procedures. Focused interaction between engineers, industry, and surgeons is always mandatory (i.e., a therapeutic alliance for addressing 'unmet patient or professional needs'. (4) Novel techniques in MICS lean heavily on usability and safe and effective use in dedicated hands. Therefore, the use of training and simulation models should enable skills selection, a safe learning curve, and maintenance of proficiency. (5) The critical technical steps and cost-benefit trade-offs during the journey from invention to application will be explained. Business considerations such as time-to-market and returns on investment do shape the cost-benefit room for commercial use of technology. Proof of clinical safety and effectiveness by physicians remains important, but establishing the technical reliability of MICS tools and warranting appropriate surgical skills come first.

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent 'conformity asssessment' organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details ‒ which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE‒MD project (Coordination of Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.

The combination of medical devices and medicinal products revisited from the new European legal framework

Medical devices and medicinal products have many similarities in their nature, scope or specific medical purposes, and despite the differences in their principal means of action, they are often used in combination. Indeed, many medicinal products depend on medical devices for their administration, and it is increasingly common for medical devices to contain medicinal substances to support their action. Therefore, the combination of medicinal products and medical devices provides additional benefits for patients. However, their higher technical complexity requires a strengthening of their authorisation and certification requirements. In this regard, more comprehensive requirements and classification rules are introduced by a new European regulation on medical devices that fully applies from May 26^th 2021. On account of their therapeutic significance, this review aims at gaining insight into the borderline between medical devices and medicinal products in this new 2021 regulatory framework. For the first time, any item containing a medical device and a medicinal product will have both parts evaluated. Through exemplification of both marketed and investigational devices incorporating medicinal substances and drug-device combinations, the new European requirements and their implications are thoroughly illustrated herein.

Regulatory Requirements For Medical Devices And Vascular Ageing: An Overview

The development and use of medical devices are subject to regulations and approval activities to enter the market. These are mandatory for manufacturers and have important implications for all involved professionals. In fact, the innovation process, starting from a clinical need, includes the identification of a solution and its implementation, and requires taking into account crucial aspects according to regulatory requirements in each phase. These include exemplary validation or risk management. The aim of this work is to provide an overview of some key aspects of regulation and their implementation in medical devices for vascular ageing assessment. In particular, regulatory scenarios in Europe, Australia and the United States of America are described and examples of marketed medical devices for vascular ageing assessment are provided. Strong and active links among industry, research, clinical experts and governments adds value for the community, requiring the ability to communicate between different skills and backgrounds: this multidisciplinary and multi-partner collaboration can speed up the innovation process and can increase the system's efficiency related to both social and ethical impact.

Digital Health: Implications for Heart Failure Management

Digital health encompasses the use of information and communications technology and the use of advanced computing sciences in healthcare. This review covers the application of digital health in heart failure patients, focusing on teleconsultation, remote monitoring and apps and wearables, looking at how these technologies can be used to support care and improve outcomes. Interest in and use of these technologies, particularly teleconsultation, have been accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Remote monitoring of heart failure patients, to identify those patients at high risk of hospitalisation and to support clinical stability, has been studied with mixed results. Remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure has a consistent effect on reducing hospitalisation rates for patients with moderately severe symptoms and multiparameter monitoring shows promise for the future. Wearable devices and apps are increasingly used by patients for health and lifestyle support. Some wearable technologies have shown promise in AF detection, and others may be useful in supporting self-care and guiding prognosis, but more evidence is required to guide their optimal use. Support for patients and clinicians wishing to use these technologies is important, along with consideration of data validity and privacy and appropriate recording of decision-making.

Study design, result posting and publication of late-stage cardiovascular trials

AIMS

Pre-registration of study protocols in accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched for interventional, late-phase cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies in adults registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. first posted after 1/1/2013 and completed up to 31/12/2018. Data on study design, result reporting and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined.In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. 179 trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. The most common primary outcomes were non-clinical endpoints (76.0%), with only 17% of studies evaluating clinical endpoints. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P < 0.001 and 55.0% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.033, respectively). Sixty three studies (25.2%) had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov, and 116 (46.4%) had results published in the scientific literature. In multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship was statistically significantly associated with results posting (OR: 3.38; 95% CI: 1.56-7.30, P = 0.002) and publication (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.75, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only 1/4 had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and <50% had results published. Industry sponsors were more likely to invest in research on patent-protected drugs and devices than were non-industry sponsors. Industry-sponsored studies were more likely to have their results posted, but less likely to have their results published in the scientific literature.