You are looking for

Many times I’ve found myself in situations where I had to explain that indeed in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) are to all extent medical devices but that, in practice, the subject we happened to be discussing would not entirely (or at all) be applicable to IVDs.
It was always a case of: “…yes, yes.. BUT”…
If there is one message you take away from this post, let it be… IVDs have very different risk sets associated to them: no direct contact with patient, value of the medical data they deliver and that they provide no treatment.

Only a few days ago, I heard those words for the first time. Me? Writing a blog? Hmmm, ok, there could be an opportunity here… And now I am looking at a blinking cursor inviting me to put down a few thoughts and ideas.
Well, why don’t I start by answering a few questions “Why now? Why not 3-4 months ago, Serge? How often can we expect to read your posts? And what will you be talking about?”

If there is one thing that the medical devices industry agrees on it is that the new proposals for medical devices and IVD regulations are welcome and necessary evolution of regulation. What the industry also agrees on is that although it generally supports the new proposals, it is not certain at all that the proposed scrutiny procedure will achieve the intended goals.

In vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests are likely to be a part of everyone’s life, in many cases, more than once. Yet most people do not know what these tests are or what they do.

The European Commission’s proposal to revise the medical device legal framework is a welcome step towards strengthening and improving the EU regulatory system. Recognised globally as being the fastest in providing life-saving technologies to patients without compromising safety, this thorough overhaul of the regulatory system seems to be mostly in line with Europe and President Barroso’s stated policy of ‘Smart Regulation’: ensuring the quality and relevance of EU legislation, which should benefit people and businesses.

I have always found that no matter how much a person looks forward to a change, there is still that little tad of reluctance – a fear that things may not turn out for the better. The hesitation, even if momentary, manifests itself in the simple and mundane everyday tasks like clicking install for a computer software update or taking life’s big leaps, like getting married. The concern for what the change may bring is all the greater when you didn’t really mind the way things were in the first place. From my experience, some of us in the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) industry are also experiencing a bit of such reluctance when it comes to the revision of the IVD directive. Especially when it has worked fine since 1998, so why the change? A reasonable question, but considering the differences that have arisen between the healthcare context of the late 1990s and today, it’s time that our industry give the proposal careful consideration in the lead up to its approval, taking into account the impact of each of the legislation’s proposed aspects.

January 2012 was a fruitful month for EU guidance on medical devices and produced among other MEDDEVs the MEDDEV 2.1/6 Qualification and Classification of stand alone software. This MEDDEV contains the latest thinking on how stand alone software, i.e. software that does not necessarily run on a medical device (but may have medical device functionality), qualifies as medical device under the three medical devices directives. If you are interested in a lot more background about the MEDDEV than I can provide in this blogpost (and especially nice flowcharts, which make life more simple for everyone), you can find it here.

eHealth is booming, hospitals, doctors, clinics, SMEs, big companies, everybody seems to be developing an app nowadays. It is great to see how many people are throwing their weight behind eHealth initiatives in every possible way: remote monitoring of demented senior citizens by means of image interpreting software, decision support systems, …, you name it. […]

There are some who are claiming that the EU Commission’s formal objection to eleven standards raised at the end of last year shows that the ‘New Approach’ has shortcomings and that the whole system is ripe for overhaul. I would argue far from it. The New Approach is a very clever system of product regulation, […]