The certification comes at a time when many companies have been saying that the May 2020 deadline is too soon.
Manufacturers must re-evaluate existing regulatory and compliance strategies to meet the new requirements.
SNITEM & Philips France vs. Health Minister: the ECJ defines the conditions under which software for assistance to the medical prescription can be qualified medical device within the meaning of the Directive.
The agency has released a draft guidance outlining its policy for accepting data from foreign clinical studies.
The most important part to remember about this recommendation document for unannounced audits is that it not only applies to medical device manufacturers, but also significantly includes their suppliers and subcontractors.
Unannounced notified body audits are nothing new. Unfortunately, because of one really bad apple in the industry and a perception of the regulatory environment in the EU lacking teeth, the Commission has come up with an unrealistic and expensive solution for industry.
What’s changing in the medical devices and in vitro diagnostic regulatory landscape in the European Union, and how can you effectively navigate these changes? This article offers an overview.
Well (deep subject, the doctor knows), I know many of the readers were wondering about Dr. D’s next series. The doctor really wanted to make this next series an enjoyable surprise. That being said, surprise, surprise, surprise (thank you Gomer Pyle USMC); the next series of Dr. D’s articles will be focused on complying with MHLW Ministerial Ordinance Number 169.
During the course of the last eight months, Dr. D has had the opportunity to dive into 98/79/EC, the European In-Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Directive while extracting salient elements in the hope of providing Devine Guidance for the readers. This journey has now come to an end.
Dr. D has just one takeaway from this edition of DG; “Just comply baby!” It does not get any easier than that, well maybe not that easy.