What 524B and QMSR actually require, in plain terms, including the post-market obligation that does not end at clearance? How both map to four kinds of exposure: cybersecurity, product liability, recall, and management liability. Where device makers are commonly unprepared against the new baseline, including the gap between cyber risk and product liability for software and devices.
Emerging medical-device risks are often missed because early warning signs are fragmented across complaints, manufacturing, suppliers, returned products, clinical observations, and other data sources; not immediately as statistically significant trends. An engineering-centered, cross-functional approach connecting these weak signals to underlying mechanisms sooner, can improve designs, verification, manufacturing controls, and risk management before isolated issues become widespread quality problems.
In the current Cyber Threat environment, companies must have strong cyber liability insurance. Policies must specifically account for cyber-physical risks and the substantial costs of post-market remediation, including mandatory software patches and patient notifications. Insurers are well aware of the 524B mandate and are increasingly requiring proof of compliance before issuing coverage or offering favorable rates. How do you assure your cyber risk plan insurable?
Wearables are changing the game for health monitoring. From smartwatches and rings to skin patches, glasses, and even bras, companies are in a race to bring the latest innovations to market. But as this trend gains momentum and competition heats up, so do concerns about potential risks like data privacy, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and the possibility of inaccurate health readings that could critically impact user safety.
nsuring the safety and efficacy of medical devices/IVDs is paramount in the healthcare industry. This critical objective is achieved through comprehensive risk management practices, and two key frameworks play a crucial role: ISO 14971:2019 and the FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR). This essay explores their individual contributions and how they work synergistically to enhance medical device safety.
A new guide from the Healthcare and Public Health Sector Coordinating Council recommends cybersecurity strategies that manufacturers and health providers can implement for legacy medical technology as a shared responsibility in the clinical environment, and provides insights for designing future devices that are more secure.
Mitigating risk of failure is one of the most important disciplines to perform for medical device manufacturers, and for the last couple of years, it has become an increasingly difficult discipline to master.
Revised EU GMP Annex 1 requirements must be fulfilled by August 2023. Designed to protect and increase confidence in the sterility of these products, the new specifications are significant and wide-ranging, spanning the Quality system and the manufacturing process itself. Anna Cluet of Rephine discusses the practical specifics of designing and delivering a fit-for-purpose contamination control strategy.
Per EU MDR regulations, any medical device on the market must be considered “state-of-the-art.” However, the term is not explicitly defined. Exploring MDR verbiage around standards harmonization, risk management and clinical data may allow a clearer understanding of regulatory expectations to emerge.
EU regulations require manufacturers of medical devices and systems prove the single-fault safety of their products. However, it is not clearly defined in detail how to comply with these requirements. This article explains which technical and legal requirements apply and which aspects should be considered during development.