An accelerated access pathway for innovative high-risk medical devices under the new European Union Medical Devices and health technology assessment regulations? Analysis and recommendations

References

• European Union. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European parliament and of the council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing council directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (Text with EEA relevance.) [Internet]. OJ L. Apr 5 2017; Available from . http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/oj/eng
   Google Scholar
• European Union. Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 of the European parliament and of the council of 15 December 2021 on health technology assessment and amending directive 2011/24/EU (Text with EEA relevance) [Internet]. Dec 15, 2021. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2282/oj/eng.
   Google Scholar
• Tarricone R, Ciani O, Torbica A, et al. Lifecycle evidence requirements for high-risk implantable medical devices: a European perspective. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020;17:993–1006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L, et al. CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:191–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blankart CR, Dams F, Penton H, et al. Regulatory and HTA early dialogues in medical devices. Health Policy. 2021;125(10):1322–1329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummers M, Kværner K, Sampietro-Colom L, et al. On the integration of early health technology assessment in the innovation process: reflections from five stakeholders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:481–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser AG, Byrne RA, Kautzner J, et al. Implementing the new European regulations on medical devices-clinical responsibilities for evidence-based practice: a report from the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:2589–2596.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser AG, Nelissen RGHH, Kjærsgaard-Andersen P, et al. Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (coordinating research and evidence for medical devices). Eur Heart J - Qual Care Clinl Outcomes. 2022;8:249–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarricone R, Ciani O, D’Acunto S, et al. The rise of rules: will the new EU regulation of medical devices make us safer? Eur J Intern Med. 2020;80:117–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck A, Retèl VP, Bhairosing PA, et al. Barriers and facilitators of patient access to medical devices in Europe: a systematic literature review. Health Policy. 2019;123:1185–1198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarricone R, Torbica A, Drummond M. Challenges in the assessment of medical devices: the MedtecHTA project. Health Econ. 2017;26:5–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox EM, Edmund AV, Kratz E, et al. Regulatory Affairs 101: introduction to Expedited Regulatory Pathways. Clin Transl Sci. 2020;13:451–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver JA, Howie LJ, Pelosof L, et al. A 25-YEAR EXPERIENCE of US food and drug administration accelerated approval of malignant hematology and oncology drugs and biologics: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:849–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Delm K. Accelerated access to medicinal products. Eur Pharm Law Rev. 2021;4:192–206.
   Google Scholar
• Van Norman GA. Update to drugs, devices, and the FDA: how recent legislative changes have impacted approval of new therapies. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2020;5:831–839.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Detela G, Lodge A. EU regulatory pathways for ATMPs: standard, accelerated and adaptive pathways to marketing authorisation. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2019;13:205–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Norman GA. Drugs and devices: comparison of European and U.S. approval processes. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016;1:399–412.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ong C, Ly VK, Redberg RF. Comparison of priority vs standard US food and drug administration premarket approval review for high-risk medical devices. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:801–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston JL, Dhruva SS, Ross JS, et al. Early experience with the FDA’s breakthrough devices program. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38:933–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs RE, Donohue JM, Dusetzina SB, et al. Taking the FDA’s concerns seriously. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:199–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development [Internet]. Health Technol Assess. 1998 [cited 2021 May 20];2. Available from: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta2030.
   Google Scholar
• Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pace J, Ghinea N, Kerridge I, et al. An ethical framework for the creation, governance and evaluation of accelerated access programs. Health Policy. 2018;122:984–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagai S. Flexible and expedited regulatory review processes for innovative medicines and regenerative medical products in the US, the EU, and Japan. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:3801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bootes A, Maundu J, Golding S, et al. Fast-track pathways for drug approvals: the Australian experience so far. Aust Prescr. 2019;42:118–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokura Y, Yano K, Yamato M. Comparison of the new Japanese legislation for expedited approval of regenerative medicine products with the existing systems in the USA and European Union. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2018;12:e1056–e1062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang TJ, Ross JS, Vokinger KN, et al. Association between FDA and EMA expedited approval programs and therapeutic value of new medicines: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;371:m3434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Conditional marketing authorisation. Report on ten years of experience at the European medicines agency [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/conditional-marketing-authorisation-report-ten-years-experience-european-medicines-agency_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Breakthrough Devices Program [Internet]. FDA. FDA; 2021 [cited 2021 May 18]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-your-device/breakthrough-devices-program.
   Google Scholar
• Therapeutic Goods Administration. Prescription medicines determination and designation notices [Internet]. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Australian Government Department of Health; [cited 2021 Nov 16]. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/ws-designation-notices-index.
   Google Scholar
• Therapeutic Goods Administration. Fast track approval pathways [Internet]. Therapeutic goods administration (TGA). Australian Government Department of Health; [cited 2021 Oct 19]. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/fast-track-approval-pathways.
   Google Scholar
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In: Australian department of health. Priority applicant guidelines for medical devices (including IVDs) [Internet]. Australia: Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Australian Government Department of Health. 2020 cited 2021 Oct 8. Available from. https://www.tga.gov.au/resource/priority-applicant-guidelines-medical-devices-including-ivds
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka M, Idei M, Sakaguchi H, et al. Achievements and challenges of the Sakigake designation system in Japan. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87:4027–4035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salcher-Konrad M, Naci H, Davis C. Approval of cancer drugs with uncertain therapeutic value: a comparison of regulatory decisions in Europe and the United States. Milbank Q. 2020;98:1219–1256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce CS, Brhlikova P, Heath J, et al. The use of validated and nonvalidated surrogate endpoints in two European medicines agency expedited approval pathways: a cross-sectional study of products authorised 2011–2018. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim C, Prasad V. Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US food and drug administration approvals. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1992–1994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro TB, Buss L, Wayant C, et al. Comparison of FDA accelerated vs regular pathway approvals for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0236345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyawali B, Rome BN, Kesselheim AS. Regulatory and clinical consequences of negative confirmatory trials of accelerated approval cancer drugs: retrospective observational study. BMJ. 2021;374:n1959.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Downing NS, Shah ND, Aminawung JA, et al. Postmarket safety events among novel therapeutics approved by the US food and drug administration between 2001 and 2010. JAMA. 2017;317:1854–1863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostaghim SR, Gagne JJ, Kesselheim AS. Safety related label changes for new drugs after approval in the US through expedited regulatory pathways: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2017;358:j3837.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wallach JD, Ross JS, The NH. US Food and Drug Administration’s expedited approval programs: evidentiary standards, regulatory trade-offs, and potential improvements. Clin Trials. 2018;15:219–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen EY, Haslam A, Prasad V. FDA acceptance of surrogate end points for cancer drug approval: 1992-2019. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180:912–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. FDA Regulation and. Approval of Medical Devices: 1976-2020. JAMA. 2021;326:420–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenboeck A, Mehlman A, Pearson SD. Potential policy reforms to strengthen the accelerated approval pathway. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10:1177–1186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naci H, Salcher-Konrad M, Kesselheim AS, et al. Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval. Lancet. 2020;395:986–997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadakia KT, Beckman AL, Ross JS, et al. Renewing the call for reforms to medical device safety-the case of penumbra. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182:59–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Buyse M, Drummond M, et al. Time to review the role of surrogate end points in health policy: state of the art and the way forward. Value Health. 2017;20:487–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciani O, Grigore B, Blommestein H, et al. Validity of surrogate endpoints and their impact on coverage recommendations: a retrospective analysis across international health technology assessment agencies. Med Decis Making. 2021;41:439–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The EU med device regulation timeline: what you should know in [Internet] 2020. [cited 2022 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.qualio.com/blog/eu-medical-device-regulation-timeline.
   Google Scholar
• How do you get medical device CE marking approval? [Internet]. Medical device academy. [cited 2022 Jan 15]. Available from: https://medicaldeviceacademy.com/medical-device-ce-marking/.
   Google Scholar
• Medcert.de. MDR - Medical Device Regulation 2017/745. Initial conformity assessment process [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.medcert.de/wp-content/uploads/MDR-Zertifizierungsablauf-15042021.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pease AM, Krumholz HM, Downing NS, et al. Postapproval studies of drugs initially approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence: systematic review. BMJ. 2017;357:j1680.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olavarria OA, Shah P, Bernardi K, et al. The evidence behind products cleared by the 510(k) Process. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;231:S85–S86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS, et al. Regulation of Pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018. JAMA. 2020;323:164–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MedTech Europe. MedTech Europe’s Facts and Figures 2021 [Internet]. MedTech Eur. cited 2022 Sep 1; Available from. https://www.medtecheurope.org/resource-library/medtech-europes-facts-and-figures-2021/
   Google Scholar
• Kanavos P, Angelis A, An DM. EU-wide approach to HTA: an irrelevant development or an opportunity not to be missed? Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:329–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell B, Wilkinson J, Marlow M, et al. Generating evidence for new high-risk medical devices. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2019;1:e000022.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paez A, Rovers M, Hutchinson K, et al. Beyond the RCT: when are randomised trials unnecessary for new implantable therapeutic devices, and what should we do instead? Annals of surgery (under review). 2021;
   Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs—same or different? - Drummond - 2009 - value in health - Wiley online library. Value Health. 2009;12:402–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes DR, Califf R, Farb A, et al. Overcoming the challenges of conducting early feasibility studies of medical devices in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1908–1915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callea G, Federici C, Freddi R, et al. Recommendations for the design and implementation of an Early Feasibility Studies program for medical devices in the European Union. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2022;19:315–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatt DL, Mehta C. Adaptive designs for clinical trials. Drazen JM, Harrington DP, McMurray JJV, et al., editors. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:65–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleetcroft C, McCulloch P, Campbell B. IDEAL as a guide to designing clinical device studies consistent with the new European medical device regulation. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2021;3:e000066.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bolislis WR, Fay M, Kühler TC. Use of real-world data for new drug applications and line extensions. Clin Ther. 2020;42:926–938.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell B, Wilkinson J, Marlow M, et al. Long-term evidence for new high-risk medical devices. Lancet. 2018;391:2194–2195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• In: Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide [Internet] 3rd. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB, (editors.) Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014. cited 2021 Nov 29]. Available from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208616/
   Google Scholar
• Mahase E. FDA allows drugs without proven clinical benefit to languish for years on accelerated pathway. BMJ. 2021;374:n1898.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McGettigan P, Alonso Olmo C, Plueschke K, et al. Patient registries: an underused resource for medicines evaluation: operational proposals for increasing the use of patient registries in regulatory assessments. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1343–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Q&A: commission proposal on health technology assessment [Internet]. European commission - European commission. [cited 2021 Nov 15]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_18_487.
   Google Scholar
• Bouttell J, Briggs A, Hawkins N. A different animal? Identifying the features of health technology assessment for developers of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:285–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu S, Hassenplug JC. Patient access to medical devices — a comparison of U.S. and European review processes [Internet]. Massachusetts Medical Society; 2012 [cited 2021 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMp1204170.
   Google Scholar
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In: Australian department of health. consultation: accelerated assessment of medical devices - priority review pathway - implementation [Internet]. Australia: Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Australian Government Department of Health. 2017 cited 2021 Jul 1. Available from. https://www.tga.gov.au/consultation/consultation-accelerated-assessment-medical-devices-priority-review-pathway-implementation
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval, priority review [Internet]. FDA; 2019 [cited 2021 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Adaptive pathways: key learnings and next steps [Internet]. Eur Med Agen. 2018 cited 2021 May 17; Available from. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/adaptive-pathways-key-learnings-next-steps
   Google Scholar
• Reckers-Droog V, Federici C, Brouwer W, et al. Challenges with coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: a systematic review. Health Policy Technol. 2020;9:146–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici C, Reckers-Droog V, Ciani O, et al. Coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices in Europe: characteristics and challenges [Internet]. Eur J Health Econ. 2021 cited 2021 Jul 19; DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01334-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martelli N, van den Brink H, Borget I. New French coverage with evidence development for innovative medical devices: improvements and unresolved issues. Value Health. 2016;19:17–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adenot I, Camus D, A-A ÉDF, et al. Early patient access to health technologies: is innovation needed for early management? Therapies. 2020;75:71–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boriani G, Vitolo M, Svennberg E, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements for devices and procedures in cardiac electrophysiology: an innovative perspective. Europace. 2022;24:1541–1547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LP, Towse A, Briggs A, et al. Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements—good practices for design, implementation, and evaluation: report of the ISPOR good practices for performance-based risk-sharing arrangements task force. Value in Health. 2013;16:703–719.
   Google Scholar
• Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:445–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser AG, Butchart EG, Szymański P, et al. The need for transparency of clinical evidence for medical devices in Europe. Lancet. 2018;392:521–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zettler M, Nabhan C. Fulfillment of postmarketing requirements to the FDA for therapies granted oncology indications between 2011 and 2016. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:993–994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oortwijn W, Sampietro-Colom L, editors. The VALIDATE handbook: an approach on the integration of values in doing assessments of health technologies [Internet]. Netherlands: Radboud University Press. 2022. cited 2022 Sep 1. Available from. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/57096
   Google Scholar
• Gj van der W, Oortwijn W. Health technology assessment: a matter of facts and values. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38:e53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marsh K, Ganz ML, Hsu J, et al. Expanding health technology assessments to include effects on the environment. Value Health. 2016;19:249–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polisena J, Angelis GD, Kaunelis D, et al. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A HEALTH TECHNOLOGY: a SCOPING REVIEW. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:317–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman JD, MacNeill A, Thiel C. Reducing pollution from the health care industry. JAMA. 2019;322:1043–1044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen BL, Grüttner H. Comparative study on environmental impacts of reusable and single-use bronchoscopes. Am J Environ Protec. 2018;7:55.
   Google Scholar
• Kinch MS, Haynesworth A, Kinch SL, et al. An overview of FDA-approved new molecular entities: 1827–2013. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:1033–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banzi R, Gerardi C, Bertele’ V, et al. Approvals of drugs with uncertain benefit–risk profiles in Europe. Eur J Intern Med. 2015;26:572–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar