GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDICAL DEVICE REGULATIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF US, CANADA, EUROPE, INDIA, AND JAPAN

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON MEDICAL DEVICE REGULATIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF US, CANADA, EUROPE, INDIA, AND JAPAN

Rounak Bhattacharya, Subhadeep Parua *, Debkanta Das, Satyasis Majumder, Sudip Mukherjee and Rudrajit Saha

School of Pharmacy, Seacom Skills University, Bolpur, West Bengal, India.

ABSTRACT: This review paper compares medical device regulations across the United States (US), Canada, Europe, India, and Japan. It offers an understanding of the many regulatory frameworks that control the approval processes for medical devices, the Competent Authorities, the rules and regulations, the licensing or registration processes, the classification systems for devices, and the quality management/GMP standards. The US adheres to rigorous approval procedures, encompassing quality system regulations and stringent reporting standards. Health Canada's regulatory system entails pre-market scrutiny, post-market surveillance, and compliance measures. India's regulatory landscape requires urgent enhancements to streamline guidelines and implementation strategies. In the European Union (EU), products must meet essential conditions to obtain CE marking for market entry. Japan employs the PMDA & MHLW for safety reviews, approvals, and post-market monitoring. This comparative study underscores the importance of harmonizing global regulatory standards and highlights areas for future improvement. This study outlines key findings and implications, serving as a valuable resource for stakeholders navigating international medical device regulations.

Keywords: Medical device regulations comparison, Pre-market scrutiny, and surveillance, CE marking, Premarket Notification 510 (k), Harmonizing global regulatory standards

INTRODUCTION: A piece of equipment that is used on patients for diagnosis, treatment, or surgery is called a medical device. An extensive array of equipment is included in the term “medical device,” including hospital beds, contact lenses, hip implants, pacemakers, in-vitro diagnostics equipment, and even basic wooden tongue depressors.

Medical devices function in other ways than pharmaceuticals, such as through mechanical, chemical, thermal, physiochemical, or other techniques ¹. The WHO states that there are differences between medical equipment and medical devices.

It defines a medical device as one that is intended to be utilized in the detection, measurement, restoration, correction, or modification of the body’s structure or function to improve health, as well as in the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of disease. Implantable, disposable, or single-use medical devices are not considered to be medical equipment ².

Similar definitions have been adopted by numerous other agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) in INDIA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in Europe, the Ministry of Health, Labour & Welfare (MHLW) in Japan and many others with minor modifications. Additionally, the International Medical Devices Regulators Forum (IMDRF) and the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) promote the global convergence of definitions and regulations, which helps facilitate trade and maintain a high standard of safety protection globally. The IMDRF is pushing for regulations about clinical investigations, general performance and safety criteria, technical documentation, conformance assessment processes, Unique Device Identification, and categorization guidelines ².

This comparative analysis is new because it examines medical device laws from a broad international perspective, emphasizes patient safety and market accessibility, contributes to harmonization efforts, and has implications for policy and future paths in research. Through the synthesis of various information sources and the provision of practical insights, the review functions as a helpful tool for stakeholders who are attempting to negotiate the intricate terrain of medical device regulation on a worldwide level.

The use of medical devices is growing significantly in today’s healthcare system, regardless of the aspect of the patient prevention, diagnosis, therapy, or disease monitoring. The medical device and equipment industry is growing quickly for several obvious reasons, including the availability of new laws, the presence of national device regulatory bodies, significant market shares, and the potential for international harmonization ¹.

METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive comparative assessment was carried out in 2024 to examine the frameworks for the procurement of medical equipment in the chosen countries. United States, Canada, India, Europe, and Japan were chosen. To search the databases of PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, enter the terms "medical devices," "medical equipment," "procurement," "purchasing," and "acquisition."  In addition, searches for this literature were conducted on the websites of relevant institutions, including the World Bank, the WHO, and the national ministries of health. The search was conducted from 2015 to 2024.

Articles and papers that provided a general overview of the procurement structure in the chosen nations were included after the first screening. The accessibility of the evidence in English was also taken into account. The exclusion criteria included not being able to view complete texts, letters, or commentary article designs.

This study's framework for gathering and analyzing data is extensive enough to cover every facet of the process of buying medical equipment. The literature review, the research question, and the team members' opinions served as the foundation for the development of the framework. A form was created to extract data, and it contained the following information: the date of publication, the names of the authors, the organization to which they belonged, the type of document, the major players in the medical device acquisition space, the degree of centralization, the primary decision-making factors, and any recent significant changes in the field. For every article, data were gathered using the form. The material was extracted as specified using a qualitative review of the articles and papers. Comparative tables were used to categorize the data to do this descriptive-comparative analysis ³.

Medical Device Approval Process in the Chosen Countries:

Medical Device Regulations in the United States: In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulates medical devices generally. Under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centre for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is in charge of policing companies that are involved in the production, repackaging, relabelling, importation, or manufacture of medical devices that are marketed in the US. Medical devices are classified into three classes by the FDA according to the level of regulatory oversight required to guarantee their efficacy and safety. Devices classified as class I carry a minimal risk of injury to the user. Due to their complexity, Class II devices need unique controls for post-market monitoring, labeling, advice, tracking, design, and performance criteria. For most of them to be allowed market entrance in the US, Premarket Notification 510(k) is required. Class III devices are typically implanted, preserve or protect life, or pose an unreasonable danger of disease or harm and are subject to the greatest regulatory controls. Premarket approval or PMA, is needed for the majority of these devices to be sold ¹.

Steps for Marketing Clearance: First, confirm that the product you want to sell is a medical device by ensuring it satisfies section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act's definition.

The second step is to determine which of the three classes the FDA has classified your device as belonging to.

Step three requires establishing data for market application to obtain FDA clearance.

For the majority of class III devices and some class II devices, clinical evidence is required. Clinical trials should be carried out by the guidelines for Investigational Device Exemptions (IDE) to gather such data. An IDE makes it possible to employ an experimental device in clinical research to gather the safety and efficacy data needed for the filing of a 510(k) or PMA application. Applications for IDEs will have a 30-day review period from the FDA. Agency data evaluation ensures that the device's safety, efficacy, and expected advantages for human usage are met, along with the scientific validity of the suggested clinical trial design.

Major Routes to Market Entry: A device's approach to market can follow one of three main paths after clinical studies:

• Premarket Notification 510(k)
• Premarket Approval Application
• Humanitarian Device Exemption

Premarket Notification 510(k): A 510(k) is a premarket application submitted to the FDA to show that the device intended for marketing is substantially identical to a legally marketed product not subject to a PMA, meaning it is at least as safe and effective. A gadget is regarded as being roughly equal to a product that is sold lawfully if it shares the same intended application and technological features as that legally marketed device already on the market ¹.

Applicants must make and substantiate their SE claims, as well as compare their product to one or more comparable, lawfully marketed devices. The device refers to the same class if it is SE to a predi­cate. It falls into class III and ceases to be SE if it is not ⁴.

TABLE 1: DIFFERENT PREMARKET NOTIFICATION 510(K) SUBMISSION METHODS ¹

510(k) Submission Methods: To get 510(k) marketing clearance in specific situations, there are three methods for submitting 510(k) submissions: Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated. Table 1 summarizes the requirements for these various submission methods as well as the standards that must be met.

Premarket Approval Application (PMA): The most rigorous kind of device marketing application that the FDA requires is the PMA. The FDA uses the PMA process, which combines scientific and regulatory evaluation, to assess the efficacy and safety of class III medical devices, or devices that, after a 510(k) process, were determined not to be substantially equivalent to a class I or II predicate.

Devices classified as class III include those that maintain or support human life, have a significant role in preventing health impairments in humans, or pose an unjustifiable risk of disease or harm. PMA needs credible scientific evidence, such as controlled studies, recorded case histories, personal experience, etc., to guarantee the safety and efficacy of devices.

Humanitarian Device Exemption: An apparatus designed to treat or diagnose a sickness or condition that affects or manifests in fewer than 4000 people in the United States annually is referred to as a humanitarian use device (HUD).

An application for a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) must be filed with the FDA to be approved. An HDE is not subject to the PMA's efficacy standards, but it is comparable to one in both form and content.

However, the FDA needs enough evidence in the application to conclude that there isn't an unjustifiable or substantial risk of disease or injury from the device. Fig. 1 shows the general process for medical device approval in the US.

Regulations of Medical Devices in Canada: Under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drugs Act, the Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD) enforces the Food and Drug Regulations and the Medical Devices Regulations to guarantee the high quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical medications and medical devices provided for sale in Canada. Under the Financial Administration Act, the TPD is also responsible for enforcing fee laws related to pharmaceuticals and medical devices ⁵.

The current regulatory structure in Canada dates back to 1998. The basis of the regulations deals with:

• The classification of in-vitro and non-in-vitro medical devices.
• Guidelines for efficacy and safety in all medical equipment.
• Specifications for the manufacturer's quality management system.

The FDA and Health Canada have different requirements for approving medical devices. Some of the most notable distinctions are related to ISO, reviewer discretion, and device classification. Knowing how these variations will probably affect your company will help you assess if getting Canadian clearance is worth the effort.

FIG. 1: MEDICAL DEVICES APPROVAL PATHWAY IN THE US ¹

Medical Device Registration in Canada: The first requirement is that MDSAP accreditation be obtained by manufacturers who wish to market their products in Canada. The manufacturers need to get a license to sell the gadgets in Canada. Health Canada issues the following two categories of licenses:

1. MDEL (Medical Device Establishment License) – Class I Medical Devices.
2. MDL (Medical Device License) – Class II, Class III and Class IV Medical Device.

Certification and Timeline:

• Both MDL and ISO 13485: 2016 are requirements for medical device manufacturers who wish to sell their products in Canada.
• The MDEL process takes 120 days.
• MDL (Class II Medical Device): 15 days; Class III: 75 days; Class IV: 90 days.

The device's approval is the goal of the MDL license. On the other hand, MDEL is given to the importer, distributor, and producer. The license for medical devices is valid for one year.

Opportunities in the Canadian Market: Given that imports account for 80% of the market, foreign manufacturers have multiple options in Canada. Orthopedic/prosthetic devices, dental products, patient support, supplies, and diagnostic equipment are the most sought-after things.

The regulatory framework is likewise well-established in Canada. It might be simpler for American producers to enter the Canadian market if the FDA approves them ⁶.

Regulations of Medical Devices in India: Currently, medical devices are not class-organized in India as they are in other major markets such as the US, EU, and Japan.

Several medical device categories have been flagged by the Indian government's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as drugs that need to be registered in the country under the Gazette Notifications system.

These include intrauterine devices (Cu-T), blood/blood component bags, blood grouping sera, bone cement, cardiac stents, catheters, condoms, disposable hypodermic syringes, disposable hypodermic needles, disposable perfusion sets, drug-eluting stents, heart valves, internal prosthetic replacements, intraocular lenses, IV cannula, orthopedic implants, scalp vein set, skin ligatures, sutures and staplers, surgical dressings, tubal rings, and umbilical tapes ¹.

Current Product Registration Process: According to the existing CDSCO system, the Drugs Controller General of India must approve any device before it can be registered. Only when the application has received an import license and registration certificate may a medical device be sold in India.

Registration Requirements: To issue a Form-28 license to manufacture medical devices in India, CDSCO/MD/GD/CLAA/01/00:

• Letter of Authorization.
• Required Amount (Rs. 6000 for the License and Rs. 1500 for the Inspection).
• The approved manufacturing premises plan/layout.
• Covering letter.
• Site Master File (SMF).
• Device Master File (DMF).
• The promotional materials, the packaging insert, the device label, etc.
• A properly completed Form-27.
• Specific environmental requirements.
• Full details of regular and skilled technical staff.
• Constitution details of the form.
• Specifications of the Standards.
• ISO 13485:2003 Certificate (where applicable), CE mark (if applicable), and any additional approvals ⁷.
• Required Fee (Inspection + Rs. 6000/-License fee).

FIG. 2: THE DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR REGISTERING A MEDICAL DEVICE IN CANADA ⁵

Import License Application Process: Obtaining the Registration Certificate, the importer may apply to DCGI for an import license. A cover letter, an authorization letter, and a wholesale license are required documents for an import license. Furthermore, a manufacturer's completed Application for Import License (Forms 8 and 9) verifying the applicant's status as an importer is needed.

Proposed Regulations of Medical Devices in India: In 2006, the Ministry of Science and Technology presented the Medical Devices Regulation Bill (MDRB). The Medical Device Regulatory Authority of India was intended to be established by the MDRB, which was created to consolidate laws about medical devices. The Central Drug Authority is yet another new organization that is suggested in the idea. The law is still pending and has not been approved by India's Council of States. The MDRB will regulate all medical devices in India if it is passed. The bill will also increase the number of goods that need to be registered ¹. The general procedure for medical device approval in India is displayed in Fig. 3.

Marketing of Medical Devices in India: After the import license and registration certificate are granted, the goods are eligible to be sold in India. Any modifications, unfavorable events, recalls in other countries, etc., must be communicated right once to the CDSCO by the authorized Indian representative.

Challenges in India’s Medical Devices: The fact that the Indian market is import-dependent attracts medical device manufacturers, but there are also regulatory obstacles. The issue is that India's regulatory body is still developing, so rules could change suddenly and undermine the validity of the licensing procedure. It might be a good idea to monitor the news every day.

Opportunities in the Medical Devices in India: Healthcare spending in India is estimated to be worth $100 billion by 2015, up from its present $65 billion valuation. Due to the aging and growing urban population, there is an increasing need for complicated medical diagnostics. There exist two distinct groups of superior medical diagnostic apparatus:

• MRI, PET, and CT scans are used for in-vivo diagnosis
• Diagnostic equipment for IHC, FISH, PCR, q-PCR, MS, sequencing, and other tests is known as in-vitro diagnostics ⁵

FIG. 3: MEDICAL DEVICE APPROVAL PROCESS IN INDIA ⁵

With a market value of USD 3 billion, India has the fourth-largest medical supply industry in Asia, providing excellent business prospects for foreign investors and investors. Before the launch of the Indian market, domestic enterprises controlled this sector in the 1990s; however, things have changed. The truth is that multinational corporations (MNCs) account for 75% of sales of imported medical equipment or equipment that requires imported materials in the current Indian medical device market. Manufacturers export over 60% of their total production. From its projected 2020 value of INR 780 billion, the Indian medical device sector is estimated to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 35.4% to reach INR 3,550 billion by 2025 ⁵.

FIG. 4: MEDICAL DEVICE SEGMENT IN INDIA ⁵

Regulations of Medical Devices Ineurope: Through the new MDR 2017/745, the former AIMD directive 90/385/EEC and the MDD 93/42/EEC were intended to be improved.

The following elements are linked to some of the major changes, including an extended definition of the term "medical device" that will now include products made to predict and identify illnesses in addition to those without a definite medical use (see Fig. 5).

Enhanced review of medical devices and the reclassification of some device categories, such as implants to replace injured spinal discs and surgical meshes, to class III ⁸.

New (tougher) designation criteria and roles for NB to guarantee they have the required competencies. In assessing high-threat Magnitude III scientific gadgets, new (tougher) guidelines for the informed entities to follow have been released, but only if the manufacturer meets certain standards and in certain circumstances.

CE Mark in Europe: The European Economic Area (EEA) requires products to bear the CE mark as proof of compliance before they can be sold. When a product bears the CE mark, the maker guarantees that it complies with the Fundamental Conditions of the relevant EC directives. The CE mark, which permits unrestricted product movement within the European market, is a crucial sign that a product complies with EU law. Custom-made items, those undergoing clinical research, and in-vitro diagnostic medical devices for performance assessment are the only types of devices lacking the CE mark.

In the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the 27 EU member states as well as the EFTA nations of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein, the CE marking is required for several product categories ¹.

FIG. 5: THE CHANGES IN EU REGULATION ⁹

Competent Authority: To guarantee that the medical device directives are incorporated into national law and are followed, the governments of each Member State designate a Competent Authority with responsibility for medical devices. The Notified Body is appointed by the Competent Authority, which also oversees its operations. The examination of adverse events and the permission for clinical investigation are handled by the Competent Authority. The Member State's Health Minister receives reports from the Competent Authority. One Member State's Competent Authority is not able to exercise jurisdiction over any other State.

Notified Body: A private, commercial testing facility or certifying body that has been authorized by the Member State's Competent Authority is known as the Notified Body. The headquarters of the Notified Body must be located in one of the relevant European Member States.

Regular reviews of the Notified Body's actions and judgments are conducted by the Competent Authority. Correct classification, product verification, auditing and certifying the Quality System, reviewing the technical files for classes II a and II b, and reviewing and certifying the Design Dossier for class III medical devices are all under the purview of the Notified Body ¹.

Procedure to Get CE Mark:

First, categorize the medical equipment by medical equipment Directive Annex IX.

Step 2: Select the conformance assessment path (Annexes)

Step 3: Designate a Representative with Authorization.

If necessary, register the device.

Step 4: Adhere to the Directive's detailed conformance procedures.

Step 5: Label the gadget appropriately and attach the CE marking ¹⁰.

FIG. 6: MEDICAL DEVICE APPROVAL PATHWAY IN EUROPE ¹

Regulations of Medical Devices in Japan: Clinical and regulatory affairs management in Japan explains how the recently updated Pharmaceutical Affairs Law influences the creation of clinical trial plans. A Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) must be submitted by the sponsor of a clinical trial investigation to PAL thirty days before the initiation of a trial involving a new device. Similar to a US IDE application, the CTN includes a description of the device, preclinical data, the clinical trial protocol, and an analytic plan. Medical equipment is divided into four classes under the current Pharmaceutical Affairs Law: class I, class II, class III, and class IV ¹.

Medical Device Regulatory Agencies in Japan: Japan's agency for pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) was founded in 2004 through the merger of the Organization for Pharmaceutical Safety and Research (OPSR), the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Evaluation Centre of the National Institute of Health Sciences (PMDEC), and a portion of the Japan Association for the Advancement of Medical Equipment (JAAME). Together with the MHLW, The PMDA is an autonomous regulatory organization that works to ensure the security and caliber of medications and medical supplies in Japan. PMDA is in charge of post-market safety, medication and device reviews, and adverse effect alleviation services ¹.

The Health, Labour, and Welfare Ministry of Japan: Japan's regulatory authority for developing and enforcing safety regulations for pharmaceuticals and medical devices is the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). MHLW has the power to inspect a site to verify GMP and make the ultimate determination about whether to authorize a device. Additionally, MHLW plays a big part in advancing the growth of the medical device sector. It collaborates closely with foreign governments and international organizations to advance improved regulation and control on a worldwide scale ¹. Safety and effectiveness evaluations under MHLW are handled by two centers: JAAME and PMDEC. Division 4 of PMDEC is in charge of reviewing clinical trial applications and approval applications for new devices, while JAAME handles equivalency reviews for all applications for generic devices.

Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) for Japan: To export their products, foreign medical device businesses that did not have a local office in Japan used an In-Country Caretaker (ICC). However, with the introduction of PAL, the Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system has taken the role of this requirement. All pharmaceutical and medical device businesses that do not have a local office in Japan are mandated to designate an MAH.

Requirements for the Japanese MAH: MAH needs to have a valid MHLW license, be headquartered in Japan, and have three employees: a general manager, a quality manager, and a safety manager. Every MAH task is supervised by the general manager. The quality manager oversees production, makes sure that shipping and receiving are done correctly, and notifies MHLW of any changes to production. The Safety Manager oversees the security of equipment introduced into the market ¹.

Review Procedure: To commercialize medical devices in Japan, the MAH has to authorize the device via one of the following procedures: Todokede premarket filing is necessary for class I medical devices. MAH just needs to send PMDA a Premarket submission. Class II medical equipment must have premarket certification (Ninsho). To become certified, MAH must submit a PMA application to a Registered Certification Body (RCB). Medical equipment classified as III and IV require PMA (Shonin). MAH must apply for a PMA to the PMDA and get their approval.

FIG. 7: MEDICAL DEVICE APPROVAL PATHWAY IN JAPAN ¹

Case Studies:

Case Study 1: Digital Diabetes Management Systems: Connected Insulin Pen: Several interconnected care systems are being created to help with diabetes management and treatment. Here, we introduce a connected care system that tracks patient injection doses automatically using an insulin pen connected to a smartphone app.

The intricacies involved in treating diabetes make it difficult for many patients to effectively manage their condition. Insulin therapy involves a lot of steps and decisions in addition to requiring manual glucose and insulin data recording, which is laborious and has low patient compliance. In addition to relieving the workload of manual recording, automating the recording of blood sugar, insulin dose, and injection time may increase patient data accuracy. A more trustworthy and comprehensive dataset may enhance the administration and results of treatment, which may have a beneficial effect on diabetes self-management.

Regulatory Aspects: The benefit-risk profile of a pharmaceutical product may be affected by the use of a medical device. For instance, if the device malfunctions, the risk of medication errors may increase or decrease. As a result, the regulatory pathway that is open to a digitally based diabetes management system varies based on the kind of medication and device combination. The connected pen may come in the form of an injector pen that is pre-filled or re-usable, and the connected component may be an integrated part of the pen or an add-on device. These are significant factors to take into account because, although the reusable injector pen that is intended to be used with an insulin cartridge is authorized separately as a medical device, the pre-filled pen that contains insulin is authorized as a medicinal product and will require an NB Opinion for the approval of the MAA. Relying on the intended use, an app competent for use with a connected auto-injector pen may have some functionalities that require the app to be certified as Class II a or II b MDSW. Furthermore, certification as a medical device may be required for an add-on device to a prefilled pen or reusable pen. Depending on the risk class, an NB may be needed for the conformity assessment process for an MDSW.

Challenges: The introduction of ‘connected’ devices raises challenges for sponsors on the nature and level of data necessary to support the MAA of the associated medicinal product. The evidence regarding MDR compliance also differs based on whether the DHTTs are integral, co-packed, or supplied separately, as well as how they are classified.

The EMA's duty is to provide a scientific opinion regarding the benefit-risk analysis of the pharmaceutical product, of which the auto-injector pen is a crucial component. The benefit-risk profile of the pharmaceutical product may be impacted by the medical device's performance and safety. The EMA review's scope will take into consideration how the digital health application affects the medicinal product's benefit-risk assessment (e.g., the precision of dose administration records) and the applicant's strategy for assessing and managing that impact, for example, in the occurrence of medication errors. Sponsors can use the well-established scientific advice procedure to inquire with CHMP for feedback on data required to support the MAA. The main difficulty sponsors have, though, is juggling two potentially overlapping regulatory frameworks at the same time. Understanding the types of clinical and other data needed to back up any claims made in the corresponding medical product information and/or instructions for the use of medical devices will help to make these DHTTs more easily approved.

Solutions: To conquer the existing obstacles and expedite the qualification and approval processes for these DHTTs, sponsors would flourish from concurrent and coordinated joint scientific advice between the medical device bodies and medicinal product regulators. This is by the progression of an integrated evaluation pathway for the appraisal of medicines and medical devices; this pathway's development would enable prompt alignment on recommendations and evaluation of the various components of the DHTTs (i.e., medicinal products, medical devices, and apps) ¹¹.

Case Study 2: Digital Monitoring of Symptoms in Patients with Cancer: Software modules for web-based digital patient monitoring (DPM) are being developed to record symptoms that cancer patients report. This idea is an evolvement of more conventional (telephone-based) remote patient monitoring. DPM is a tool used in clinical practice to gather patient-reported outcomes and allow for real-time clinician review. The software's patient-facing components, known as modules, include educational equipment, a symptom questionnaire, and, in certain situations, algorithms for processing the question naira’s input. A combination of software modules and a standalone platform, connected to a clinic's electronic medical records, is referred to as a DPM solution. The DPM module's patient-facing section often focuses on a particular cancer and may record or contain information unique to a particular medication. By better managing disease and medication treatment, gathering patient-reported disease or treatment-related symptoms and quality-of-life-reported data, and enabling smooth, non-urgent communication between patients and healthcare professionals, this technology aims to improve patient care and the efficient use of healthcare resources.

Regulatory Aspects: By strengthening the identification of adverse events that patients directly report, DPM modules can increase compliance. This can subsequently improve clinical decision-making and a medicinal product's safety profile. Depending on the real intended use, they are typically regarded as Class II MDSW apps in Europe and are subject to conformity assessment (MDR).It could be required to assess every DPM software component to ascertain its classification as a medical device because modules differ in their intended uses and classifications. It is essential to be able to discern how each component contributes to the benefit risk when it is stated that the DPM module affects the benefit-risk of the related medicinal product.

Challenges: When making a clinical decision about a single medication within a specific cancer type, DPM modules can be helpful. It is unclear what proof is needed to expand the DPM module's functionality from one medication to a class of medications, treatment lines, or disease indications. A critical grasp of the safety and efficacy features of the medicinal product as well as knowledge of a particular disease area are necessary to assess the equivalency of evidence generated in one indication to another or across medicinal products. NBs liable for the CE certification do have clinical experts, but they might not know the details of a medicinal product’s safety, efficacy, and class effects. It is typically not possible to interact formally with the EMA for products that are regulated as medical devices, like DPM modules, unless there is an opportunity to include a claim in the labeling of the medicinal product. As a result, one of the difficulties faced by medical device sponsors under the existing regulatory framework is the intricacy of consulting with the NBs and possibly the EMA on such queries.

Furthermore, several DPM modules created by manufacturers are being marketed with the claim of having comparable functionality without being required to exhibit comparable treatment outcomes. For a medical device that poses little risk to patients, it would be excessive to require proof of the comparability of treatment outcomes across tools. The goal of DPM module manufacturers is to prove that their products are safe to use and technical performance is sufficient for their intended use. Still, comparable functional evidence might help doctors and patients make more informed choices about evidence-based disease management solutions.

Solutions: The industry writers would welcome the chance to jointly discuss DPM module regulation, even though it is outside the purview of the EMA. This would allow them to pool their knowledge and experience from both the EMA and the NBs. Sponsors would benefit from broad guidelines on the evidence needed to expand the DPM module's claim from its functionality on a single medication to a class of medications, treatment lines, or disease indications. Furthermore, given the rise in comparable DPM modules being introduced to the market and their claimed functionality, it would be advantageous for developers if NBs established the general requirements required to establish equivalency in reaching comparable treatment outcomes for this kind of DHTT ¹².

Case Study 3:  FDA Clearance Process for Robotic Surgical Systems in the United States: Robotic surgical systems have brought about a revolution in minimally invasive surgery by providing advantages to surgeons such as enhanced dexterity, visualization, and ergonomics. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for guaranteeing the effectiveness and safety of these intricate devices. This case study looks at the FDA clearance procedure for robotic surgical systems in the US, emphasizing the regulatory perspectives, difficulties manufacturers face, and possible solutions.

Regulatory Aspects: Robotic surgical systems are governed by FDA regulations as medical devices. The device's uniqueness about current technologies determines the precise clearance route that applies. The two main pathways are broken down as follows:

510(k) Clearance: For robotic surgical systems with features comparable to those of devices that have already received clearance, this is the most popular path. Manufacturers show that their system is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, which means that it offers comparable or better performance without posing any additional risk.

Premarket Approval (PMA): A PMA application is needed for highly novel robotic systems that don't have any similar predicate devices. This entails a more thorough procedure with copious data from clinical trials attesting to the safety and efficacy of the device.

Challenges: During the FDA clearance process, manufacturers of robotic surgical systems encounter various obstacles:

Rigorous Testing: Robust testing data is required for both the PMA and 510(k) pathways. Manufacturers are required by 510(k) to demonstrate substantial equivalency using bench testing and possibly animal studies. For PMAs to be safe and effective, large patient cohorts must participate in thorough clinical trials.

Evolving Technology: Robotic surgery is developing so quickly that a flexible regulatory framework is required. The FDA must strike a balance between protecting patient safety and promoting innovation.

Cost and Time: Particularly for PMAs, the FDA clearance process can be costly and time-consuming. This may make it more difficult for smaller businesses to commercialize cutting-edge robotic systems.

Solutions: There are a few solutions to expedite the FDA clearance procedure for robotic surgery systems:

Clearance Guidance Documents: Clearance guidance documents specifying prospects for particular kinds of robotic surgical systems can be obtained from the FDA. This can speed up the process and assist manufacturers in customizing their submissions.

Risk-Based Clearance: The FDA might take a more risk-based approach, adjusting the level of scrutiny to the possible risks connected to the planned use of the robotic system.

Collaboration: Enhanced cooperation among the FDA, manufacturers, and clinical researchers can speed up the clearance process by facilitating effective clinical trial design and data collection ¹³.

Case Study 4:  Regulatory Approval of Remote Patient Monitoring Systems by Health Canada: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems have appeared as a converting technology in healthcare, assuming for continuous collection and analysis of patient health data outside of conventional clinical settings.

However, a strong regulatory framework is required to guarantee these systems' efficacy, security, and patient safety. This case study looks at Health Canada’s regulatory approval procedure for RPM systems, highlighting important regulatory elements, manufacturer difficulties, and possible ways to improve the procedure.

Regulatory Aspects: RPM systems are controlled by Health Canada's Medical Devices Regulations (MDR) as medical devices. An RPM system's classification is determined by its intended use as well as any associated risks. This is how the classification scheme is broken down:

Class I (Low Risk): Simple RPM devices that pose a minimum risk, such as blood pressure monitors or weight scales.

Class II (Medium Risk): RPM systems that are more delicate and necessitate moderate controls, like continuous glucose monitors.

Class III (High Risk): High-risk RPM systems with a high potential for damage, such as implanted devices that allow for remote vital sign monitoring. The classification determines the level of pre-market submission required for approval. While Class II and III devices require more thorough submissions with supporting data on safety and effectiveness, Class I devices might only need a basic registration.

Challenges: The following challenges that RPM system manufacturers encounter when applying for approval from Health Canada:

Evolving Regulatory Landscape: As the field of RPM develops quickly, Health Canada's regulatory framework needs to accommodate new functionalities and technologies.

Data Security and Privacy: RPM systems excerpt and send sensorial patient health information. It is imperative to maintain strong cyber security protocols and adherence to data privacy laws such as PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act).

Interoperability: Compatibility between different RPM systems and electronic health records (EHR) is obligated for ceaseless data exchange and integrated patient care. However, it can be challenging to attain interoperability across different platforms and devices.

Solutions: The following are some potential ways to deal with the challenges and accelerate the RPM system regulatory approval process:

Clear Regulatory Guidance: Health Canada can provide clearer and unambiguous guidance documents that specify the requirements for various RPM system types.

Risk-Based Approach: It might be advantageous to use a risk-based strategy equivalent to the FDA's model. In the context of the possible risks connected to the intended use of the RPM system, this would customize the level of regulatory scrutiny.

Standardization of Data Formats: RPM systems' use of standardized data formats would make it easier for devices and EHRs to exchange data, enhancing interoperability and simplifying data analysis.

Collaborative Efforts: To further enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the regulatory environment surrounding RPM systems, Health Canada, manufacturers, and healthcare providers should work collaborate, and communicate openly ¹⁴.

Case Study 5: Regulatory Challenges in Bringing TMS Devices to Market in Japan: For the treatment of several neurological and psychiatric disorders, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) devices present a prospective approach. For manufacturers hoping to release their TMS devices on the market, navigating Japan's regulatory landscape can present substantial challenges. In addition to analyzing the difficulties manufacturers encounter, this case study looks at the regulatory framework that governs TMS devices in Japan and suggests probable solutions for an easier approval procedure.

Regulatory Aspects: TMS devices are controlled as medical devices by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) of Japan. The device's intended use determines the special classification and approval process. The general categories are broken down as follows:

Class II: TMS devices for treating well-established conditions like major depressive disorder (MDD) typically fall under the Class II classification. This requires a more streamlined approval process compared to Class III devices.

Class III: TMS devices may fall into this category if they are meant to treat uncommon conditions or conditions with a higher risk profile. This needs a more stringent approval procedure along with copious clinical data attesting to efficacy and safety.

Challenges: When requesting approval in Japan, manufacturers of TMS devices face various hurdles:

Limited Clinical Data: There may not be enough evidence to support the use of TMS in some circumstances, especially when it comes to the Japanese population. Approval may be hampered by this, particularly for Class III devices.

Reimbursement Landscape: Securing reimbursement from the national health insurance system can be tricky even with PMDA approval. The cost-effectiveness of manufacturers' TMS devices about current treatment alternatives must be proven.

Stringent Post-Market Surveillance: Strict post-market surveillance requirements for medical devices are enforced by the PMDA. After a device is released onto the market, manufacturers need to have reliable systems in place to oversee the device on its performance and safety.

Solutions: To overcome these challenges and provide a more straightforward route for TMS devices to enter the Japanese market, several tactics can be used:

Collaboration with Japanese Researchers: Creating clinical data specific to the Japanese population through a partnership with Japanese research institutes can support applications for approval.

Focus on Cost-Effectiveness: To increase their chances of having their reimbursement requests approved, manufacturers should provide solid evidence regarding how much less expensive their TMS devices are when compared to conventional treatments.

Early Engagement with PMDA: Manufacturers can more effectively navigate the approval process and comprehend regulatory expectations by maintaining proactive communication with the PMDA throughout the development process ¹³.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Device approval systems vary among countries. Comparisons of medical device approval in terms of Competent Authority, rules and regulations, license or registration, medical device classification, and quality management system/GMP have been summarised in the table for chosen countries ¹. The US medical device regulation follows set rules for device approval, quality system regulation, labeling, and reporting requirements. Medical equipment must be licensed under Health Canada's Regulatory System. The regulatory process is separated into three phases: pre-market scrutiny, post-market surveillance, and in-process compliance and enforcement ⁵.

India's medical device sector lacks adequate guidelines and execution. Urgent attention is needed to release and apply recommendations in this field. The regulatory structure for medical devices in the EU includes three directives that require products to meet fundamental conditions before receiving CE marking and entering the market ¹. In Japan, PMDA & MHLW are the key agencies responsible for medical device safety review, approval, and post-market monitoring ¹.

Medical device development is rapidly advancing, but regulatory variances can significantly impact stakeholders like producers, providers, regulators, and patients, necessitating proper evaluation. Regulatory variations can pose both challenges and opportunities for manufacturers. They can complicate the market, potentially leading to delays and higher costs, while also offering opportunities for product modification or regional variations. Regulatory variations affect healthcare professionals' adoption and use of medical technologies, affecting equipment availability and accessibility. This can lead to discrepancies in healthcare outcomes and access to innovative treatments, as medical gadgets are approved in different nations.

Regulators are crucial in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices, but discrepancies can hinder approval and monitoring, leading to delays in clearance and potential risks to patients. Harmonization is essential. Regulatory discrepancies can significantly impact patients, affecting the availability and accessibility of medical devices, leading to delays in innovative therapies, higher costs, and fewer options, and affecting safety and quality. The global medical device industry is rapidly expanding, necessitating regulatory practice harmonization & alignment to ensure patient safety and efficacy, despite the challenges posed by the interconnected world.

Harmonisation and alignment of regulatory practices standardize norms across countries, ensuring consistency and speed, particularly in medical devices, which directly impact patients' health. Harmonisation and alignment in medical regulations can enhance global market access, facilitating quicker approvals and enabling patients to access life-saving technologies. Harmonisation and alignment enhance patient safety by ensuring uniform regulations across countries, reducing hazards, and ensuring the functionality of medical devices. Harmonization and alignment of regulatory procedures can lead to economic benefits, such as reduced burden on manufacturers, streamlining requirements, and cost savings for patients and healthcare systems. Harmonization and alignment strategies, despite their benefits, can be challenging due to varying healthcare systems, cultural norms, and legal frameworks, but even partial harmonization can foster collaboration. Medical devices are crucial in modern healthcare, diagnosing, treating, and monitoring various disorders. Rapid growth in the sector necessitates policies and research development. Research is needed to ensure the secure functioning of the devices, as they have been linked to high-profile incidents causing significant harm to patients due to design defects or faults in operation. Further research is needed to find out and mitigate potential risks in medical devices, including their design, manufacture, and use, to ensure their continued healthcare benefits. More research is needed on the long-term usefulness of the devices, despite their clinical trials, to determine their practical use and identify factors influencing their usefulness. Policymakers must address the affordability of medical devices to ensure their availability and affordability for all patients, as expensive gadgets can limit treatment access. Policy formulation is crucial to address the cyber security issue with medical equipment, as they are increasingly connected to the internet, ensuring their security and implementing adequate procedures for response.

TABLE 2: COMPARISON CHART OF MEDICAL DEVICES IN THE US, CANADA, INDIA, EUROPE, AND JAPAN ^{1, 5}

CONCLUSION: These countries have different laws governing medical devices, but high-quality products are marketed through PMA and the post-market procedure. The harmonization of international standards between US and EU medical device requirements is expanding, in addition to US FDA medical device regulations. India's medical device industry is far behind other nations, and it requires careful consideration before urgent directives are released and put into action. Each country's regulatory environment presents unique challenges and opportunities for medical device manufacturers. Navigating these diverse regulatory landscapes requires a thorough understanding of local requirements, proactive engagement with regulatory authorities, and ongoing compliance with evolving regulations.

Collaboration between regulatory agencies, industry stakeholders, and healthcare professionals is essential to ensure patient safety, innovation and market access in the global medical devices industry. Therefore, this study aims to provide strong backing for all parties involved in initiatives to improve the medical device regulatory framework in both academic and professional settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editors and reviewers for their valuable time, expertise, and constructive feedback provided during the review process of this manuscript. Their insightful comments and suggestions have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the content.

We also extend our appreciation to our guide Mr. Rounak Bhattacharya, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, Seacom Skills University, Bolpur, West Bengal-731236, India, and another teacher Mr. Rudrajit Saha,  Assistant Professor, Dept. of Pharmaceutics, East West Education Institute, Purba Barddhaman, West Bengal-713141, India for their support and assistance in the preparation of this review article. This work was supported by School of Pharmacy, Seacom Skills University .We acknowledge the contributions of all individuals who have directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of this manuscript. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this review article to International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. We are grateful for the consideration given to our work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to this review article.

REFERENCES:

1. Kaushik D, Rai S, Dureja H, Mittal V and Khatkar A: Regulatory perspectives on medical device approval in global jurisdictions. Journal of Generic Medicines 2013; 10(3-4): 159-71.
2. Matovu B, Takuwa M, Mpaata CN, Denison F, Kiwanuka N, Lewis S, Norrie J, Ononge S, Muhimbise O, Tuck S and Etuket MD: Review of investigational medical devices' clinical trials and regulations in Africa as a benchmark for innovations. Frontiers in Medical Technology 2022; 4: 952767.
3. Rahmani K, Karimi S, Raeisi AR and Rezayatmand R: Comparative Study of Medical Equipment Procurement in Selected Countries. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 2022; 36.
4. Monsein LH: Primer on medical device regulation. Part I. History and background. Radiology 1997; 205(1): 1-9.
5. Patil GV and Basarkar GD: A review of approval and registration process of medical devices in Canada and India. International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs 2023; 11(4): 39-51.
6. Swetha N: Approval Process and Registration Process of Medical Devices in Us, Canada and India Indo Am J P Sci 2019; 06(11).
7. Pawar KN, Gore RT and Palekar SR: A review on approval process and regulation of medical devices as per US FDA and CDSCO. International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs 2023; 11(1): 61-70.
8. Katru S, Majety RP, Veluchuri JP, Yallabandi SP and Juturi RK: New regulations on medical devices in European Union. International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs 2020; 8(3): 11-21.
9. NS S, VR K and NL P: A Comparative study of medical devices and their regulations in Us, Eu, India, and China. Asian J Pharm Clin Res [Internet] 2023; 16(3): 6-14.
10. Holubová A, Bradway M, Årsand E, Hallgren D and Hartvigsen G: Do mobile medical apps need to follow European and US regulations or not: decisions exemplified by diabetes management app. In13th Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics 2015; 15-17. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.
11. Colloud S, Metcalfe T, Askin S, Belachew S, Ammann J, Bos E, Kilchenmann T, Strijbos P, Eggenspieler D, Servais L and Garay C: Evolving regulatory perspectives on digital health technologies for medicinal product development. npj Digital Medicine 2023; 6(1): 56.
12. Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, Choudhury SA and Oleynikov D: Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surgical Endoscopy 2018; 32: 1636-55.
13. Boikanyo K, Zungeru AM, Sigweni B, Yahya A and Lebekwe C: Remote patient monitoring systems: Applications, architecture, and challenges. Scientific African 2023; e01638.
14. Noda Y, Kizaki J, Takahashi S and Mimura M: TMS database registry consortium research project in Japan (TReC-J) for future personalized psychiatry. Journal of Personalized Medicine 2022; 12(5): 844.
    

    ---

    How to cite this article:

    Bhattacharya R, Parua S, Das D, Majumder S, Mukherjee S and Saha R: Global perspectives on medical device regulations: a comparative study of US, Canada, Europe, India, and And Japan. Int J Pharm Sci & Res 2024; 15(11): 3148-64. doi: 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.15(11).3148-64.

    ---

    All © 2024 are reserved by International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research. This Journal licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.