Low-Cost Optical Assays for Point-of-Care Diagnosis in Resource-Limited Settings

Readily deployable, low-cost point-of-care medical devices such as lateral flow assays (LFAs), microfluidic paper-based analytical devices (μPADs), and microfluidic thread-based analytical devices (μTADs) are urgently needed in resource-poor settings. Governed by the ASSURED criteria (affordable, sensitive, specific, user-friendly, rapid and robust, equipment-free, and deliverability) set by the World Health Organization, these reliable platforms can screen a myriad of chemical and biological analytes including viruses, bacteria, proteins, electrolytes, and narcotics. The Ebola epidemic in 2014 and the ongoing pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 have exemplified the ever-increasing importance of timely diagnostics to limit the spread of diseases. This review provides a comprehensive survey of LFAs, μPADs, and μTADs that can be deployed in resource-limited settings. The subsequent commercialization of these technologies will benefit the public health, especially in areas where access to healthcare is limited.

Do Regulatory Changes Seriously Affect the Medical Devices Industry? Evidence From the Czech Republic

Background: Within the EU, some of the challenges and perceived risks now facing medical device (MD) developers result from changes in the regulatory framework, emphasizing safety. Therefore, medical technology companies must adopt stricter quality assurance measures so that individual devices can be speedily tracked and retrieved in emergency situations.

Objectives: We highlight the challenges and risks faced by the European medical devices industry, particularly those faced by SMEs in the Czech Republic. We address two important research questions: Q1. Do advantages from increased regulation outweigh the additional expenses? Q2. As many MD developers are SMEs, will the new regulatory regime result in some of those companies going out of business and therefore impede future innovation?

Methods: The paper focuses on a single case study, with the situation and outcomes discussed in the context of the financial results of a further 50 medical device manufacturers marketing in the Czech Republic.

Results: Our findings suggest that the new legislation will result in improved safety, facilitate product recalls, but the cost and administrative burden may be high. The evidence also indicates that some SMEs may be forced to diversify to “non-medical” products, with the inevitable loss of innovative MDs being made available to patients and healthcare providers.

Recalls of cardiac implants in the last decade: what lessons can we learn?

BACKGROUND

Due to an ageing population and demographic changes worldwide, a higher prevalence of heart disease is forecasted, which causes an even higher demand for cardiac implants in future. The increasing high incidence of clinical adverse events attributed especially to high-risk medical devices has led an advocated change from many stakeholders. This holds especially true for devices like cardiac implants, with their high-risk nature and high complication rates associated with considerable mortality, due to their frequent use in older populations with frequent co-morbidities. To ensure patients' safety, the objective of this study is to analyze different cardiac implants recall reasons and different recall systems, based on an overview of the recalls of cardiac implant medical devices in the last decade. On the basis of the results from this structured analysis, this study provides recommendations on how to avoid such recalls from a manufacturer perspective, as well as how to timely react to an adverse event from a post-surveillance system perspective.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic search of cardiac implant recalls information has been performed in the PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus databases, as well as data sources in regulatory authorities from 193 UN Member States. Data has been extracted for the years 2004-2014 with the following criteria applied: cardiac implant medical device recalls and reasons for recall, associated harm or risk to patients. From the data sources described above, eleven regulatory authorities and 103 recall reports have been included in this study. The largest cardiac implant categories include ICDs 40.8%, pacemakers 14.5% and stents 14.5%. Regarding the recall reasons, the majority of reports were related to device battery problems (33.0%) and incorrect therapy delivery (31.1%). From a total of 103 recall reports, five reported death and serious injuries. Our review highlights weaknesses in the current cardiac implant recall system, including data reporting and management issues and provides recommendations for the improvement of safety information and management.

CONCLUSION

Due to the mortality associated with the nature of cardiac implants, the traceability and transparency of safety hazards information is crucial. By a structured analysis of recall reasons and their efficient management, important knowledge is gained to inform an effective safety-reporting system for monitoring the safety of cardiac implanted patients, ideally by building up cardiac implant registries worldwide in the future.