Report Finds European Union’s Assessment of High-Risk Medical Devices of Low Quality

| Printer friendly version

A report appearing in the December 2017 issue of Value in Health, (a journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) concluded that assessments of high-risk medical devices in the European Union were of low quality – based on evidence from studies that were methodologically inadequate.

The authors of the report reviewed 1,376 health technology assessment reports (“HTAs”) of high-risk medical devices (“MDs”) that were filed between 2010 and 2015.  Of the 93 that were eligible for analysis, the researchers rated each of these studies on the following criteria:

  1. Evidence base
    • Was the evidence in the HTA based on submissions by the manufacturer, data identified by an independent source, or both?
  2. Type of evidence
    • Was the evidence in the HTA based on “direct” (e.g. head-to-head trials) or “indirect” evidence?
    • Direct evidence from well-conducted randomized controlled trials were seen as providing the most valid estimates regarding the effectiveness of competing health care interventions.
  3. Level of evidence
  4. Further considerations of scientific evidence
    • What were the total number of studies considered in each HTA report?

The report ultimately found that while almost all assessments considered “based their evaluation on direct evidence from independent systematic literature searches, good-quality data were scarce.”  The report further stated that “our findings illustrate that even if systematic reviews and RCTs [randomized controlled trials] were available for assessment, most of these studies showed an unclear or high RoB [risk of bias] according to the specific tools used in their reports.”

The report ultimately concluded that:

In the EU countries, MDs are essentially regulated in the same way they have been since the 1990s. This means that high-risk MDs can enter the market and be used in humans without the requirement of evidence from robust clinical studies. As a consequence, scientific evidence prior to market approval of high-risk MDs is often based only on evidence from studies that were methodologically inadequate.

In summary, the report proposed that “additional changes are necessary, specifically with regard to the marketing authorization process of MDs, with stricter quality requirements based on methodologically robust trials, possibly in combination with other evidence sources.”

Angela Dremann
Angela Dremann is an associate in the firm's Orange County office. Ms. Dremann practices in intellectual property law, with a focus on patent prosecution and client counseling, particularly in the area of medical devices. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Dremann worked at Brinks Gilson & Lione, a Chicago-based intellectual property law firm. She is admitted to practice before the Illinois Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Click here to read full bio
View all posts published by Angela Dremann »

Leave a Reply

By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.