What IVDD medical device manufacturers need to know
Similar to last week’s guidance, device manufacturers have to do “nothing!” Article 22 is geared toward each of the Member States and the transcribing of the requirements of this Directive into their national law. As stated in the introduction to this week’s DG, compliance with the IVDD, by Member States, is mandated by law. Member States are also required to provide the Commission with the actual text of the provisions they employ to facilitate the adoption of this Directive into their national law(s).
Additionally, Member States must ensure that notified bodies falling under their jurisdiction must consider device characteristics, performance, testing, and verification activities performed under pre-existing national law(s) employed by each Member State. There was a time-period associated with this Directive (five years), in which devices previously approved under a Member State’s national law, were deemed to be acceptable under this Directive. As one can quickly ascertain from the June 2000 date for Directive applicability (12 years ago for those that might be mathematically challenged), this grace period has long-since expired.
What IVDD medical device manufacturers need to do
As previously stated, device manufacturers really have nothing to do in regards to Article 22 of the IVDD, other than to know it exists. So once again the keyword is “nothing!”
Now please do not interpret Dr. D’s understatement of this Article’s importance as a lack of caring. The simple truth is device manufacturers have plenty on their proverbial plates, like just trying to design, manufacture, and distribute medical devices that are safe and effective in their intended use. And frankly, for some device manufacturers that is challenge enough.
However, the doctor also believes that regardless of an Article’s relevance, quality and regulatory folks should still be aware of all content delineated within a Directive; and understand how each of the Articles influences their organization. Failure to do so will eventually manifest itself into written deviations, flowing freely, from your notified body, for failure to comply with the IVDD.
In fact, failure to comply with any Directive will always be problematic. Duh, Duh-Duh, consider the last sentence to be rocket science. By the way, did the doctor mention that the notified bodies work for the device manufacturers? Device manufacturers pay their notified bodies handsomely and should always take advantage of their notified body’s regulatory knowledge base.
Takeaways
The takeaway from this week’s guidance is “nothing!” The doctor is just kidding. Just to reiterate a point, device manufacturers, regardless of an Article’s applicability, must be versed in all aspects of the IVDD. Remember, device manufacturers have enough on their plates in regards to designing, manufacturing, and distributing devices that are safe and effective. However, compliance with the IVDD also counts and is mandated by law.
Until the next installment of DG, when Dr. D provides insight and guidance into complying with Articles 23 and 24 of the IVDD, cheers from Dr. D and best wishes for continued professional success.
- Devine, C. (2009, July). Exploring the effectiveness of defensive-receiving inspection for medical device manufacturers: a mixed method study. Published doctoral dissertation. Northcentral University. Prescott Valley, AZ.
- Devine, C. (2011). Devine guidance for complying with the European medical device directive – MDD. Charleston, SC: Amazon.
- Devine, C. (2012). Devine Guidance series on complying with the IVDD. Published in The Medical Device Summit.
- Devine, C. (2011). Devine Guidance series on complying with the MDD. Published in The Medical Device Summit.
- Directive 98/79/EC. (1998, October). Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices Retrieved September 12, 2011, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu