MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev.4 published - June 2016

Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#4
Thanks Ronen, I would suggest one of these overviews because I did not create my own yet.

Yasuaki, besides keeping the general evaluation process, the MEDDEV was fully revised, so there's a lot of "changes". Most are related to clarification or including more details on expectations (for example, the revised MEDDEV cites examples of systematic search and review methods such as PICO, where the old one only mentioned the need of systematic search and review methods).
 

apuigvert

Involved In Discussions
#5
Hello Marcelo,

Thanks for the link! We had the recertification audit few weeks ago and we are dealing with several NC that I consider are not quite fair.

One of them was regarding this MEDDEV and the post Marker surveillance process that we are carrying on. First of all, this guideline was apprved in June/206 and the Audit was in the same month, I know the MEDDEV are applicable immediatly, but is not possible to adapt an entire process in a few weeks.

The NC was regarding the Post Market review report, that was made based on the analysis of: FDA MAUDE, FDA recalls, internal complaints and internal CAPAs. The auditor says that the regulatory reports should be taken from all the Countries where the product is sold (adverse event reports, recalls, etc). This is quite difficult to implement, because if the company sells the product in an Asian Country (eg. Vietnam) we would need to understan vietnamese language to explore the regulatory authority webpage searching for Reports. This could happend with an European Country as well (Germany, France, Turkey...).

If I understood correctly, the MEDDEV requires the device to be compared with another CE marked device, this means that if any CE marked device had any problem, the Auth Rep and its NCA were notified, and the report should be on their database.

Anyway, my question would be. What is a good criteria for selecting the countries to collect regulatory data?

Thanks!
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#6
One of them was regarding this MEDDEV and the post Marker surveillance process that we are carrying on. First of all, this guideline was apprved in June/206 and the Audit was in the same month, I know the MEDDEV are applicable immediatly, but is not possible to adapt an entire process in a few weeks.
You got an NC due to not being in compliance with a MEDDEV? And the rev 4 in particular? Well, this does not make much sense. In practice, regarding the rev 4, some NBs are expecting that you have an implementation plan (which I think is reasonable).

The NC was regarding the Post Market review report, that was made based on the analysis of: FDA MAUDE, FDA recalls, internal complaints and internal CAPAs. The auditor says that the regulatory reports should be taken from all the Countries where the product is sold (adverse event reports, recalls, etc). This is quite difficult to implement, because if the company sells the product in an Asian Country (eg. Vietnam) we would need to understan vietnamese language to explore the regulatory authority webpage searching for Reports. This could happend with an European Country as well (Germany, France, Turkey...).
Well, I agree with the auditor, and that's what I do with my clients. You need to get market experience from your device from all markets, not only from the EU only. You have to feed back all of those inputs into your PMS and RM processes and verify if action need to be done. It's not acceptable to say that you won't get market experience of your device from a specific country it because it's in another language (why are you in the country in the first place, then?). Also, please note that this will be even more important in the new EU regulations due to the requirements of trending.

If I understood correctly, the MEDDEV requires the device to be compared with another CE marked device, this means that if any CE marked device had any problem, the Auth Rep and its NCA were notified, and the report should be on their database.
I'm not sure you understood your comment. So you mean the auditor is requiring that you get experience from the equivalent devices in all countries too in the PMS process? This is a bit of a stretch, I think.

Equivalency is more related to the premarket clinical evaluation, when you use an equivalent device data to verify yours if not enough data existis for your device. There's no specific requirements for your to gather market experience of an equivalent device AFAIK.

Theoretically, you would need to monitor experience of an equivalent device, but in this case I agree with you, due to resources, it's impossible to perform the same PMS process (all sources, reactive and proactive, etc.) for equivalent device as it's for your devices. So, historically manufacturers focus only on reported adverse events. But even in this case, it would be appropriate to verify equivalent adverse events in all countries too (as you are already required to do this for your devices, It's really not much of a burden to verify the same stuff for one or two additional equivalent devices too).
 

apuigvert

Involved In Discussions
#7
You got an NC due to not being in compliance with a MEDDEV? And the rev 4 in particular? Well, this does not make much sense. In practice, regarding the rev 4, some NBs are expecting that you have an implementation plan (which I think is reasonable).



Well, I agree with the auditor, and that's what I do with my clients. You need to get market experience from your device from all markets, not only from the EU only. You have to feed back all of those inputs into your PMS and RM processes and verify if action need to be done. It's not acceptable to say that you won't get market experience of your device from a specific country it because it's in another language (why are you in the country in the first place, then?). Also, please note that this will be even more important in the new EU regulations due to the requirements of trending.



I'm not sure you understood your comment. So you mean the auditor is requiring that you get experience from the equivalent devices in all countries too in the PMS process? This is a bit of a stretch, I think.

Equivalency is more related to the premarket clinical evaluation, when you use an equivalent device data to verify yours if not enough data existis for your device. There's no specific requirements for your to gather market experience of an equivalent device AFAIK.

Theoretically, you would need to monitor experience of an equivalent device, but in this case I agree with you, due to resources, it's impossible to perform the same PMS process (all sources, reactive and proactive, etc.) for equivalent device as it's for your devices. So, historically manufacturers focus only on reported adverse events. But even in this case, it would be appropriate to verify equivalent adverse events in all countries too (as you are already required to do this for your devices, It's really not much of a burden to verify the same stuff for one or two additional equivalent devices too).
Hello MArcelo! Thanks for your reply.

I've been thinking about how to implement the requirement to collect information from all the Countries. Is it acceptable to ask this information to the Distributors? but, if the Country doesn't have a developed regulation (eg many LATAM countires), or there is no database available?

This task seems to be a hard challenge and time consuming.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#8
I don't think that there's an expectation to get 100% of the info or 100% of the adverse events or even cover 100% of the markets. You need to cover most of the markets, including all the major ones (in terms of your unit volume in each). If you sell one device here and another there, while 80-90% of the unit volume goes into a few identified markets, I don't think you'll be cited for not chasing all those sparse units.

The key is making a sincere and reasonable effort to collect the data. Distributors are a good channel to pursue, though they have their obvious limitations. At least they can help you close the language gap. Where there's no central, publicly open database and your distributors don't cooperate, I don't think it'll be held against you provided you have evidence that you seriously tried (eg contacted various distributors etc.).

Even where a perfect system exists, a lot of events don't even get reported properly. That should put things in perspective.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#9
Ronen comment is on the spot, and it does apply to all PMS information.

But, more specifically, you do need to plan your PMS process/system how you get information on your device experience.

One of the possible sources is regulatory adverse event reports, and if a specific country does not have specific regulations and thus not have adverse event reporting, this can be a good justification for not having this information for that country. On the other hand, other sources of information should be planned.

If probably should review NB-MED/2.12/Rec1 Post-Marketing Surveillance (PMS) post market/production for examples of objectives and sources, and the new MEDDEV regulation proposal for a more general view of PMS.

I don't think you'll be cited for not chasing all those sparse units.
This is generally true, unless there's are real problems (for example, deaths) in that country :p In particular, you do not want to be notified by your NB or RAs from of serious incidents involving your device in other countries that you did not know (I've seen this happen with some clients in the past and it was devastating).
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#10
This is generally true, unless there's are real problems (for example, deaths) in that country :p In particular, you do not want to be notified by your NB or RAs from of serious incidents involving your device in other countries that you did not know (I've seen this happen with some clients in the past and it was devastating).
Yes, technically I agree. Mind you, it's not very likely that there will be a serious problem with a device that will only manifest in a random unit at an obscure market and not surface at all in at least one of that device's major markets. The exception will normally be language-related (labeling) or user-culture-related, which is why relationships with local distributors are most important in markets where formal adverse events reporting is lacking.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 and MDR - Definition of Description of Principles of operation EU Medical Device Regulations 4
E Can we still use MEDDEV 2.4/1 rev. 9 when classifying a medical device product under MDR? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
L I'm looking for Translation Procedure Guide MEDDEV 2.5/5 Rev.2 (NOT Rev.3) CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 0
dgrainger Informational Additional Guidance Regarding the Vigilance System as outlined in MEDDEV 2.12-1 rev. 8 EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M CEP requirements in MEDDEV 2.7/1, rev 4 and MDR - Are all MEDDEV requirements still applicable? EU Medical Device Regulations 7
K MEDDEV 2.4/1 rev. 9 Classification EU Medical Device Regulations 1
TheMightyWife Clinical Evaluation MEDDEV 2.7.1 Rev 4 demonstration of equivalence EU Medical Device Regulations 6
J CER - Literature search strategy and PMV data Timeline - MEDDEV 2.7.1/ Rev 4 CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
S Gap Analysis MDR req/MEDDEV 2.7.1 rev 4 EU Medical Device Regulations 3
H CER - Equivalent Medical Devices Criteria - MDR/MEDDEV REV 4 CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 9
C Qualification of Evaluator - Clinical Evaluation Report MEDDEV 2.7.1 Rev 04 CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
Q Sample of the MEDDEV 2.7.1 rev 4 Clinical Evaluation Report wanted Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 15
R Qualification of Evaluator - Clinical Evaluation Report MEDDEV 2.7.1 Rev 04 Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 1
R Clinical Evaluation according to MEDDEV 2.7.1 (Rev 4) - seeking template ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
K MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev 4 Appendix - A11 - Declarations of Interests EU Medical Device Regulations 2
F MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 - Clinical Performance & Clinical Safety Claims EU Medical Device Regulations 3
E Gap Analysis between MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev.4 vs. rev.3 wanted EU Medical Device Regulations 3
S Revised MEDDEV 2.12-1 rev 8 Vigilance System - Released EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M MEDDEV 2.12.1 rev 6 Trending of Non-Reportable Events question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
bio_subbu European Medical Devices Classification ?MEDDEV 2. 4/1 Rev. 9 June 2010? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
T Vigilance System MEDDEV 2009 changes - MEDDEV 2.12-1 rev 6 for Vigilance System EU Medical Device Regulations 1
bio_subbu Clinical Evaluation - MEDDEV 2.7.1 Rev. 3 Released - December 2009 EU Medical Device Regulations 0
A Contradictions in the reporting timelines of IVD Directive and MEDDEV 2.12-1 Rev 5 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
J EU Vigilance (updated MEDDEV rev.5) - Internal Forms EU Medical Device Regulations 12
Z MEDDEV 2.12-1 Rev 5 Reportability Decision Tree? Vigilance Reporting Procedure EU Medical Device Regulations 18
Gert Sorensen MEDDEV 2.12-1 rev. 5 released ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 0
T The “use-by“ time limit - Terminology discrepancy - MEDDEV & HS EU Medical Device Regulations 0
Kuldeep Singh Measuring Function MEDDEV 2.1/5 relation with MDD 93/42/EEC CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 1
Y When will Notified Bodies require MedDev manufacturers to fully implement ISO 14971:2019? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
pashah Looking for Clinical Evaluation SOP acc. MEDDEV and EU MDR Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
J MEDDEV 2.12/1's new MIR & IMDRF terms & codes (IMDRF Annex) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
Ronen E Informational The future of MEDDEV 2.7/1 EU Medical Device Regulations 4
R Clinical evaluation Meddev (2.7.1 revision 4) - Example or Template EU Medical Device Regulations 4
M Clinical Evaluation - MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev4 - Literature route Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
T MEDDEV 2.7/1 r4 vs. IMDRF/SaMD WG/N41 Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
P Label Translations - Translation procedure to meet the requirements of MEDDEV 2.5/5 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
Sam Lazzara Clinical Evaluation MEDDEV Guidelines SmackDown - 2017 EU Medical Device Regulations 3
E CER (Clinical Evaluation Report) MEDDEV Version 4 Template wanted CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
R Non-Conformity Report from Notified Body - MEDDEV Guide is not Legally Binding EU Medical Device Regulations 16
J Where to get meddev FSCA (Field Safety Corrective Actions) trainings EU Medical Device Regulations 7
Y Transition Period for MEDDEV 2.7.1 EU Medical Device Regulations 8
C MEDDEV equivalent requirement to CFR 806.20 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
J Good training or seminars to attend for MEDDEV 2.12-1 recommendations wanted EU Medical Device Regulations 3
SteveK NB-MED, NBOG, IMDRF and MEDDEV hierarchy EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M Australian Meddev Regulations Updated 5 Nov 2014 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
B Inquiry about MEDDEV 2.12/2 rev2 - PMCF studies EU Medical Device Regulations 3
D Vigilance Trend reporting requirements of Meddev 2.12/ver 7 in the EU Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
N MEDDEV guideline on Post Market Surveillance (PMS) EU Medical Device Regulations 8
bio_subbu EU publishes revised guidance on Medical Devices Vigilance system MEDDEV 2.12-1 Rev7 EU Medical Device Regulations 8
bio_subbu EU publishes several new & Revised MEDDEV guidance documents (FEB 2012) EU Medical Device Regulations 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom