EUDAMED and the MDR Extension
EUDAMED
The MDR extension is being written and spoken about at length, probably because it is a great idea to keep device supplies flowing in Europe and it gives the Notified Bodies some breathing room. But what about EUDAMED? What impact does the extension have?
The day after the delivery of the proposal by the European Commission I contacted them to find out how are the EUDAMED deadlines impacted. They responded by saying “the EUDAMED deadlines are unaffected”, again brilliant news. However, this proposal does bring some EUDAMED consequences for MedTech companies, which will directly affect some of their EUDAMED plans.
Within days of the proposal, we had clients coming to us who wanted to upload their legacy/directive devices. These are companies that had decided not to submit any legacy devices only to submit their regulation devices.
Why the change? The mandatory vigilance reporting of serious incidents in EUDAMED. When EUDAMED becomes fully functional in 2024 all serious incident reporting will be via EUDAMED, this is mandatory. To report an incident in EUDAMED the device must exist in EUDAMED, and you only have two days to report the incident. So prudent companies are not going to risk missing the two day deadline because their legacy device data was missing from EUDAMED, they are getting all the legacy devices into EUDAMED now.
As the extension will allow legacy devices to be sold up to 2027/2028 and beyond, from a risk management point of view it is safer to have these devices in EUDAMED way before EUDAMED becomes fully functional.
MDR Extension
The extension, what is the big deal? Firstly, the selloff periods are removed for both safe medical devices and in vitro devices, this is a big win for the industry, no more having to dump perfectly viable devices. These devices must still comply with the directives and to gain the extension there are rules you must comply with:
And as part of the extension compliance, we have new deadlines which could in themselves bring new bottlenecks
This signed agreement is a big issue, do not underestimate the time it takes to get this agreement. I was a featured guest of J o e H a g e on his MDG Premium channel (medgroup.biz/premium) last week where Michelle Lott, RAC , a real MDR expert, said to get one of these signed agreements takes at least 9 months. I presume this is if things go smoothly and Notified Bodies are not overwhelmed with people wanting to extend the 100,000s of directive devices. Nine months minimum, in reality, this means if a MedTech company wants to extend the device they should start the process ASAP in order to avoid the guaranteed bottlenecks. You can be sure some companies will sit back and wait, only to find that Notified Bodies do not have the capacity to handle their applications for a device extension.
There are three ways you can get the extension, and this applies to “Certificates issued by notified bodies in accordance with those Directives from 25 May 2017 that were still valid on 26 May 2021 and that have expired before the extension regulation comes into force”:?
领英推荐
1.??????before the date of expiry of the certificate, the manufacturer and a notified body have signed a written agreement in accordance with Section 4.3, second subparagraph, of Annex VII to this Regulation for the conformity assessment in respect of the device covered by the expired certificate
2.??????OR a completely new concept, and this is a very interesting one, an agreement in respect of a “device intended to substitute that device”. I presume the intention here is for a substitute device with the same intended purpose as the legacy device, however, the amending regulation does not say that so this is wide open for various interpretations. Can the devices be completely different and still get the directive device extension? Maybe the NB will have their own thoughts on this.
One last thought on the substitute, if you are going to substitute a product why would you work on the new regulations for the old directive device, why not simply leave this device on the market until the end of the extension and all in the supply chain are sold, and just work on substitute device meeting the regulations?
3.??????The final option for gaining the extension is if a competent authority of a Member State has granted a derogation from the applicable conformity assessment procedure in accordance with Article 59(1) of this Regulation or has required the manufacturer, in accordance with Article 97(1) of this Regulation, to carry out the applicable conformity assessment procedure.’;
Do not forget the warning that Michelle Lott, RAC gave, this process could take nine+ months so don't delay.
Extension dates and Sell Off Period
The following are the dates of the extension if you have your NB agreement:
The amending regulation does prohibit, by the end of the transitional period, the further making available or putting in service devices that are still in the supply chain one year after the end of that transitional period.
EUDAMED Submissions
We have been providing submission services for the past couple of years to many companies and uploaded thousands of devices, both directive and regulation devices. Our services can save you both time and money. We can provide you with a complete solution where we can collate your data, submit it to EUDAMED, and prepare procedures to support EUDAMED post-data submission OR we can simply provide you the submission software and our full expert support. The choice is yours; we are here to make EUDAMED as easy and painless as possible for you.
E&OE
Helping Medical Device Companies Achieve Regulatory Approval & Quality Compliance | Regulatory Affairs Quality Consultant | ISO 13485 QMS | EU MDR | Digital Health SaMD US FDA | Speaker | Host of The MedTech Podcast ???
1 年Richard Houlihan this is no time to take the foot off the gas, the extension only really allows for a bit of breathing room for those companies who were already trying to get a NB audit in place. As for EUDAMED registration, many companies sadly will just wait until its fully mandatory to register
?? Visit Eudamed.com - Everything EUDAMED
1 年Would any of our 25 leading voices have some insights to share on the proposals? or indeed some comments/answers to the questions I posed at the end of this article? Thank you in advance for your insights. Bassil Akra,?Monir El Azzouzi,?Karandeep Singh Badwal,?Jon I. Bergsteinsson,?Carrie B. Hetrick,?Lana Feng, Ph.D.,?Carlos Galamba,?Angelina Hakim,?Sabina Hoekstra-van den Bosch, PharmD FRAPS,?Richard Houlihan,?Omar M. Khateeb,?Martin King,?Ajda Mihel?i?,?Giovanni Lauricella,?Michelle Lott, RAC,?Etienne Nichols,?Rob Packard,?Scott Pantel,?Markus P?ttker,?Mitch Robbins, Tom Salemi?,?Sue Spencer,?Joe Urban,?Eva von Mühlenen, LL.M.
QA/RA Expert (Medical Devices)
1 年Hi Richard Implementation/submission dates of UDI and other data even on MDD 93/42 for EUDAMED are not changed. Am I true? You are providing good help to manufacturers, distributors and importers. It is great service.