Hello Anon,
As said before, this would highly depend on type of device, the novelty of device, classification, and intended purpose depending on the sufficient clinical evidence which would be needed. Already if you state the device is a relatively new technology, the equivalency route might not be feasible even from the beginning. Typically new applications, novel technology, or outside state of the art would find it difficult to claim equivalency under the EU MDR. You have to prove through scientific methods your device is equivalent to another device. Armin, I respectfully disagree with your statement - a contract is only needed for Class III and implants devices claiming equivalency (purposed for those manufacturers making changes to their own device). However, even proving through scientific methods is not well accepted by Notified Body reviewers; it is definitely not the substantial equivalence method of US FDA. Using equivalency in the European Union should be your last option.
If you have an ongoing clinical trial, and able to access the safety and performance data, it would be better to present what you have currently and then propose (negotiate) with Notified Body for a Post Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF). Unfortunately, the purpose and intent of PMCF has been lost by Notified Bodies as well, so this can also be a challenging pathway. PMCF is intended if there was not sufficient safety or performance data, then continued proactive accumulation of clinical data could be made to support the safety and performance of a device. These days under EU MDR, Notified Bodies apply this PMCF widely - or even as a requirement for any device. A PMCF could be used exactly in your situation where you have some clinical data and to continue proactively gathering clinical data after the CE Mark is granted to ensure the clinical benefit versus risk, safety, and performance of the days is completely understood - especially in real world situations.
------------------------------
Richard Vincins ASQ-CQA, MTOPRA, RAC
Principal Strategy Consultant
NAMSA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 15-Apr-2024 03:00
From: Stephanie Grassmann
Subject: Equivalence and Clinical investigation
Dear Anon
Please be aware that the equivalence definition under MDD is not the same as under MDR (see Annex XIV #3).
You will need full ongoing access to the Technical File of the equivalence device through a contract. The CER of equivalent device also has to have been performed according to the MDR and the manufacturer of the equivalent device has to deliver proof to the NB to this point.
There are many other variables to consider on how to best move forward. Clinical investigations are very costly and take time, as we all realise.
All the best,
Stephanie
------------------------------
Stephanie Grassmann
Founder & Managing Director of MedTechXperts Ltd
Biberstein
Switzerland
Original Message:
Sent: 11-Apr-2024 20:29
From: Anonymous Member
Subject: Equivalence and Clinical investigation
This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
Hi all,
We will soon be having a prototype of a relatively new technology device, as such there is no previous generation device. We are in the process of doing a clinical investigation which would probably take time and may miss out on the expected launch timelines; hence wondering if for CE marking, we have the submission using the equivalence pathway (with the competitor device), which would be challenged by the notified body, however until such time we would have completed the CT to respond to the deficiency and thus save time for approval. Is this a better approach in terms of timelines for approval than waiting for the submission to happen post the clinical trial?
Thanks,