Class I devices: must they have clinical data or clinical investigations?
This article was originally published in Clinica
Manufacturers of class I devices are often perplexed over the issue of clinical data: is it required for regulatory purposes, even though the devices in question have been classed as low-risk? And should the devices also undergo clinical investigations, as with higher-risk devices? Or is it good commercial sense to produce strong clinical data, perhaps based on specifically-designed clinical investigations, anyway, to convince purchasers and would-be investors of the product's value?
You may also be interested in...
It seems to be game over for anyone who might have been hoping the European Commission would do a U-turn on its decision to use the Italian CND nomenclature as the basis for communication in Eudamed, instead of the well-established GMDN. But GMDN is strong in its resolve to remain a vital global nomenclature service.
2020 is not getting off to a good start for manufacturers needing to comply with the EU’s new Medical Device Regulation on 26 May 2020. The European Commission’s latest document seems to confirm industry’s fears about the ability of the EU’s medtech system to be ready in time.
December 2019 was a big month for far-reaching EU medtech regulatory developments that will have a significant impact on the way and speed of implementation of the Medical Device Regulation.