On February 17, 2021 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published an updated version of its good clinical practice questions and answers (GCP Q&A). The updated section relates to access to patient medical records by GCP inspectors from European Economic Area (EEA) Member States. It stresses the importance of sponsors conducting studies in countries outside the EEA obtaining the prior explicit consent of a clinical trial participant for the review of their medical records by EEA GCP inspectors.
Taking a step into the digital age, the European Commission announced that the 2020s shall become the EU’s Digital Decade. The EU’s digitalization, including in the area of health, is one of the Commission’s key priorities and covers a wide range of actions and related initiatives.
Building on prior initiatives, in 2019 the Commission announced six key priorities (since supplemented by the COVID-19 recovery plan) that would shape the coming five years of policy making. One of these six key priorities is to create a Europe fit for the digital age and work on a digital strategy that will empower people with a new generation of technologies.
A recent opinion from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on data protection and scientific research builds on an opinion from January 2019 from the European Data Protection Board on the GDPR and clinical trials. The Opinion from the EDPS should be taken into account by life sciences companies in their ongoing assessment of how to apply the GDPR to scientific research both in clinical trials and more broadly.
The EDPS – an independent supervisory authority whose primary objective is to ensure that European institutions and bodies respect the right to privacy and data protection – recently published a preliminary opinion on data protection and scientific research (the Opinion). The EDPS acknowledges the critical importance of scientific research but states that “data protection obligations should not be misappropriated as a means […] to escape transparency and accountability.” In particular, according to the EDPS, compliance with data protection laws is “wholly compatible” with responsible scientific research. However, the EDPS recommends intensifying dialogue between data protection authorities (DPAs) and ethical review boards for a common understanding of which activities amount to genuine research and expects further guidance to be published by the European Data Protection Board – an independent European body, composed of representatives of the national DPAs and the EDPS.
New European medical device guidance will require manufacturers to carefully review cybersecurity and IT security requirements in relation to their devices and in their product literature. This new guidance comes at the same time as a draft guidance on privacy by design has been published by the European Data Protection Board requiring product developers to implement privacy into the design of their products.
In December 2019, the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) published its guidance on cybersecurity for medical devices (the Guidance). The MDCG is composed of representatives of all Member States and it is chaired by a representative of the European Commission. The Guidance is intended to assist medical device manufacturers meet the new cybersecurity requirements in the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) (collectively, the Regulations). In particular, the Guidance aims to assist with regard to both the pre-market and post-market requirements of the Regulations to ensure companies achieve “an adequate balance between benefit and risk during all possible operation modes of a medical device.”
The European Commission’s Medical Devices Coordination Group (MDCG) has published a much-anticipated guidance on the qualification and classification of software devices as medical devices (MDSW)1 under the new Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulations (IVDR) (the Guidance, available here). The Guidance seeks to provide clarification to medical software manufacturers with respect to (i) when software is considered a device (qualification) and (ii) what risk category the device falls into (classification).
Under the currently applicable rules, supported by guidance set out in MEDDEV 2.1/6,2 most software devices are classified as low risk. However, the new classification rules set out in the MDR, in particular Rule 11, significantly change the classification of MDSW, with many software devices to be generally considered medium- or even high-risk devices.
Here we examine which areas have been clarified by the Guidance and which topics remain open to interpretation.