Search

Aim: To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry., Methods: We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context., Findings: Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence., Discussion and Conclusions: CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Starting from historic reflections, the current SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19 pandemic is examined from various perspectives, in terms of what it implies for the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions, the modeling and monitoring of the epidemic, the development of early-warning systems, the study of mortality, prevalence estimation, diagnostic and serological testing, vaccine development, and ultimately clinical trials. Emphasis is placed on how the pandemic had led to unprecedented speed in methodological and clinical development, the pitfalls thereof, but also the opportunities that it engenders for national and international collaboration, and how it has simplified and sped up procedures. We also study the impact of the pandemic on clinical trials in other indications. We note that it has placed biostatistics, epidemiology, virology, infectiology, and vaccinology, and related fields in the spotlight in an unprecedented way, implying great opportunities, but also the need to communicate effectively, often amidst controversy., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pragmatic or practice-oriented comparative effectiveness trials may be conducted to fill the evidence gaps that are revealed after the private sector has performed the trials needed for bringing their product to the market. A tool of increasing importance to identify such evidence gaps is resulting from health technology assessments (HTA) whereby the data derived from clinical research are examined in a systematic manner with reference to effect, safety, as well as additional parameters. Practice-oriented trials are informative for healthcare decision makers, practice-changing and may even be cost-saving for the healthcare payers. There are however only a limited number of funding sources for such trials. Public and private healthcare payers should stimulate the conduct of practice-oriented trials in their effort to maximize patient benefit within the limitation of the available resources. Pragmatic randomized trials can be performed at low cost when based on existing coded electronic health records and as well health registries. Public health decision makers are increasingly taking advantage of results from health technology assessments to support priority setting. In accordance with this it would appear reasonable that decision makers should get more involved in priority setting and funding also in the field of clinical research in order to provide further evidence needed for assessments, reassessments, and subsequent qualified decisions and resource allocations in health care. A closer dialogue and collaboration between the clinical research and HTA communities would facilitate a more efficient utilization of such opportunities.

Background: Economic evaluations of companion diagnostics often fail to include the impact that tests have on the overall economic value of test-drug combinations. , Methods: To illustrate the importance of test accuracy on the cost-effectiveness of companion diagnostics by means of examples. Data were extracted from the literature., Results: The accuracy of a test and in particularly its specificity, is often more influential on the overall cost-effectiveness results than the price of the test. Specificity becomes more crucial when prevalence of the biomarker is low. Multiple, simultaneous testing faces specific challenges regarding its overall specificity., Conclusion: This article opens a discussion on some fundamental points linked to economic evaluations of test-therapy combinations.

Background: Innovative high-risk medical devices, such as new types of heart valves or hip prostheses, become available on the European market more rapidly than in USA. This is due to the European legislation allowing early marketing of innovative high-risk medical devices before high-quality clinical evidence is obtained from randomized controlled trials., Methods: We studied the premarket clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe compared with the USA. We also discussed patient safety and the transparency of information. The literature and regulatory documents were checked. Representatives from industry, competent authorities, notified bodies, ethics committees, and health technology assessment agencies were consulted., Results: In contrast to the US, there is no requirement in Europe to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of high-risk devices in the premarket phase. For the patient, this implies earlier access to innovative technology, but at the risk of potential safety issues. At this moment, European requirements for clinical studies are lower for medical devices than for drugs, and data from premarket clinical trials are scarce or remain unpublished. The European Medical Device Directives are currently being reworked., Conclusions: For innovative high-risk devices, and while awaiting a reworked Medical Device Directive, patient risk should be minimized by limiting the market introduction of novel high-risk devices with minimal clinical data to physicians with the necessary training and expertise. The new European legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using a randomized controlled trial if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: High-quality clinical evidence is most often lacking when novel high-risk devices enter the European market. At the same time, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is often initiated as a requirement for obtaining market access in the US. Should coverage in Europe be postponed until RCT data are available? We studied the premarket clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe compared with the US, and with medicines, where appropriate., Methods: The literature and regulatory documents were checked. Representatives from industry, Competent Authorities, Notified Bodies, Ethics Committees, and HTA agencies were consulted. We also discuss patient safety and the transparency of information., Results: In contrast to the US, there is no requirement in Europe to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of high-risk devices in the premarket phase. Patients in Europe can thus have earlier access to a potentially lifesaving device, but at the risk of insufficiently documented efficacy and safety. Variations in the stringency of clinical reviews, both at the level of Notified Bodies and Competent Authorities, do not guarantee patient safety. We tried to document the design of premarket trials in Europe and number of patients exposed, but failed as this information is not made public. Furthermore, the Helsinki Declaration is not followed with respect to the registration and publication of premarket trials., Conclusions: For innovative high-risk devices, new EU legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using an RCT if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.

The European Conformity (CE) marking grants early market introduction to innovative high risk medical devices based on safety and device performance only, without any requirement to demonstrate clinical efficacy or effectiveness. Hence healthcare providers, patients and payers are informed neither about the added clinical value compared to an existing medical device nor about the risks incurred by using such innovations. In addition there is a lack of coherence and uniformity of approach in the assessment of high risk medical devices. These gaps may put the health and safety of patients in danger. The European Commission, in concert with Competent Authorities, industry, Notified Bodies, and other stakeholders, is working on a "recast" of the directives regulating medical devices. This article identifies and discusses the critical points of the pre-market clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in the European legal framework and compares it with the USA.