Yes, for legacy devices, per MDCG 2023-7, a clinical investigation is not required providing there is “sufficient clinical data” – and that can be clinical data from any of the sources listed in Article 2(48), including equivalence (no contract required for legacy devices).

It’s interesting that you say that because I actually have successfully helped manufacturers of Class IIB and III implantable legacy devices satisfy the requirements for clinical data with retrospectively collected data via PMCF. BUT they were also legacy devices so it would not necessarily support a new product being brought to market under MDR…

Read more

However, it also means that, if your device is Class III or implantable, a retrospective study will not satisfy the requirement for a clinical investigation per Article 61(4). In practice this should only affect a small number of manufacturers (ie, those that launched a device outside the EU and then say a few years later decide they’d like to…

Read more

Hi Amie – this is absolutely spot on, and allows for effective use of retrospective studies for the purpose of PMCF that do not require EU oversight or prior ethics committee approval (there are of course limitations to this, but thats generally the case in most scenarios). The study does not impact clinical management of the patient, so…

Read more

I learned something recently: in the EU, retrospective studies are not considered “clinical investigations”. I realise that MDCG 2021-6 spells this out, but I thought they meant, “they aren’t investigations that you need to apply to a competent authority for”. But, no, they mean, at all. I can see why intuitively, but if you strictly go by…

Read more