Abstract

From the first stages of design to the devices' commercial release, the creation of medical devices entails a tough and intricate process. This work's goal is to examine and evaluate the subject in order to guarantee its presentation. Most recent studies on the creation of medical devices, covering risk assessment at different levels and regulatory decision-making. By 2025, India will bring in $280 billion in revenue. By 2025, the market, the market value is anticipated to increase to $50 billion from its present $5.2 billion.

Keywords

Introduction

A wide range of tools, machinery, and other devices used for illness detection, monitoring, treatment, and prevention are referred to as medical devices. Medical devices are manufactured utilizing physical or electrical technologies, in contrast to medications, which have an effect on the body through chemical or metabolic processes. They can be found in many different forms, including as medical devices, delivery systems, software, and hardware. Before being put on the market, medical devices must undergo a thorough evaluation process to guarantee their safety and suitability for their intended use. Medical devices are categorized based on the hazards associated with them. Lower-risk gadgets are frequently thoroughly tested, sometimes with the use of data from similar devices, to make sure they are secure and functional.Generally speaking, this property just has to be registered as a business. But before they hit the market, they frequently go through non-medical testing including sterility and biocompatibility tests. Pre-market testing for electronic items has to be more stringent. This covers both controlled and unregulated activities. Single-unit studies or comparisons with industry-standard performance metrics may be part of clinical trials for these high-risk devices. In clinical trials, comparisons and contrasts frequently call for balancing techniques. A large part of these studies is figuring out whether the intervention is effective in the actual world because rules place more emphasis on "effectiveness" than "performance." Every trial's ideas and interpretations need to be monitored by research teams.Practical clinical trials (pRCTs) and the use of real-world evidence to inform clinical decisions are highlighted in the FDA's 2017 recommendations. Furthermore, the necessity for more pRCTs for medical devices has been brought to light by the recent requirement to optimize clinical trials in order to more effectively apply new technologies and streamline medical device testing. Premarket clinical studies for high-risk medical devices generally adopt a more practical approach than those for medications and biologics. The evidence needed for such testing is the main topic of this chapter. The healthcare system in India has advanced significantly in the twenty-first century. By 2025, the company, which is expanding at a rate of about 10% a year, is predicted to reach $280 billion. The average worldwide is $1,061. Over the next four years, the $128 billion Indian healthcare industry is predicted to expand at a 12% annual rate.[3] Medical equipment, which is essential for various medical professions' monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation, is a vital component of the medical systems in developing nations. In particular, India is a significant market for medical equipment; sales there are predicted to expand at a 15% annual rate to reach $50 billion by 2025. Depending on their purposes and uses, the Indian medical market is separated into a number of categories. With 34% of the market, medical supplies and equipment constitute the largest category. The next in order of importance is photographic equipment (31%), herbal goods and other equipment (19%), and patient aids and other equipment (16%). [1] More than 70% of India's medical supplies are imported. For domestic businesses, this offers a huge chance to close the production gap between imports and domestic output. Nonetheless, the process of producing medical devices in India is difficult and time-consuming. Medical device clearance and monitoring procedures are outlined in the Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020 and the Indian Medical Devices Rules (IMDR), 2017. Every stage of the life cycle of medical equipment is covered by these regulations, including production, marketing, importation, distribution, and registration. In order to guarantee the safety of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics, the European Commission, relevant authorities, and warning bodies have improved the EU Medical Devices Directive (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation (IVDR) 2017. The new standards demand that all medical devices undergo a reevaluation to make sure they still meet certification and compliance requirements. Clinical trials are crucial to routine maintenance and long-term safety for EU medical devices. They are also necessary to demonstrate and validate their safety. While the MDR's transitional phase was originally set to expire on May 26, 2021, on April 23, 2020, the European Parliament and the European Council decided to extend it by a year. As of right now, the IVDR is still being implemented. Post-marketing rules do exist, but they adhere to specific requirements. Clinical trials in India must be restricted to certain medical devices chosen during development, according the Indian Medical Devices Regulation (IMDR). This comparison takes into account the fact that both laws were recently updated and passed at the same time, and that they are still being impacted by current developments.

EXAMPLE OF MEDICAL DEVICE

Today's medical equipment ranges from basic tongue depressors to high-tech devices like CAT scanners and x-ray machines. Biotechnology is crucial to the development and invention of numerous significant medical devices, even though some were found and created without the use of technology. Biotechnology advancements have made it possible to integrate medical devices like continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. When insulin is required, this gadget instantly detects blood sugar levels and triggers the insulin pump to release insulin. By delivering insulin depending on current blood sugar levels, the technology, which tracks pancreatic function, lowers the frequency of blood sugar tests and enhances the quality of life for those with diabetes.

UPKEEP OF MEDICAL APPARATUS                                                                          In the US, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the FDA is in charge of medical devices, including in vitro diagnostics. Based on risk level, the FDA classifies medical devices into three groups: Class I, Class II, and Class III. In general, Class III devices are thought to pose a greater risk than Class I devices. The FDA has set certain rules for each category. Class II devices, on the other hand, usually require prior notice processes. Prior to being marketed, Class III devices typically need a pre-sale authorization. Medical equipment sold in the UK have to abide by both UK and EU laws.

 In the United States, two FDA centers regulate medical devices:      

• The Center for Evaluation and Research (CBER) regulates medical equipment, including the life cycle of blood, plasma, and cell products. The management, testing, gathering, processing, and design of these goods are all included in this control. Blood products and catheters are two examples of gadgets.
• Surgical, imaging, and diagnostic equipment are among the medical supplies and equipment that are inspected by the Center for Materials and Radiological Health (CDRH). Televisions and microwave ovens are examples of appliances that are not covered by this.

GUIDELINES FOR PHARMACEUTICAL REGULATION IN  INDIA

• The medical equipment does not present any safety risks, according to research done on animals before it was put through human trials. No risks or significant adverse effects have been observed in experimental animals based on observations made during this evaluation. The gadget can be used in animal research going forward, according to this evidence
• Carefully assessing the dangers and hazards related to the equipment's current state is necessary..
• Clinical trials don't need phase I pharmacology studies because medical research instruments don't involve medical practitioners. This is how they vary from pharmaceutical research
• It's vital to keep in mind that having a medical device implanted inside the body typically involves a larger risk when comparing medical devices used outside the body, such as orthopedic pins and instruments..
• Usage less frequently will lower the risk of usage more frequently than use medical equipment like intraocular lenses and anti-inflammatory medicines more regularly..
• To guarantee that medical devices are safe for patients, it is crucial to adhere to the right protocols. To minimize damage, this entails meticulous planning and adherence to protocols. To reduce danger and keep patients safe, make sure that all tools and processes are sterile.
• As with clinical trials, consent paperwork must be strictly complied with. Information about the steps to be taken should be included in the patient information form in the event that the participant wishes to withdraw from the study (IndianGCP).

1. DEVICE CLASSIFICATION                                                                                              

 In India, the Central Licensing Authority (CLA) has divided in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) and equipment into four categories. For the purpose of classifying these devices, the Indian Medical Devices Regulation (IMDR) specifies other criteria in addition to the relevant and appropriate device.[2].

1. Grade A: Lowest danger
2. Grade B: Low to moderate risk
3. Grade C: High risk
4. Grade D: High risk.

Numerous factors, such as the following, influence the distribution of medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDMDs):

• The distribution of applications should be chosen based on the device's or IVMD's (in vitro medical device) specific intended use.
• It is best to combine together mixed materials or mixed elements. Software and the devices it is related to ought to be kept apart.
• The calculator's reagents and the IVDMD reagents have to match.
• The most crucial functionalities of a device should be prioritized when classifying it based on its numerous areas of use. By doing this, the device's primary function is guaranteed to be as effective as possible and to have a clear purpose.
• To achieve a more thorough distribution, stricter procedures must be followed in addition to more rules.

MANUFACTURING                                                                                                                             

For Class A and Class B properties, the state licensing bureau accepts building permits and credit cards. The CLA simultaneously issues permits or credit licenses for the manufacturing of Class C and Class D equipment. Until it is canceled, the license is still in effect if it was paid for five years before it was issued. This also applies to medical equipment that are licensed for three years but are not frequently utilized for testing, clinical research, measurement, demonstration, or instruction.[5]

COMBINATION PRODUCT                                                                                                                                        The synthesis of novel chemicals in combination with pharmaceuticals, biological materials, or medical items has increased recently.

Two such examples in this category are as follows:

• Initially, a collagen matrix containing bioactive materials like growth hormones, antibiotics, or medications coats the implant. This layer aids in both infection prevention at the implant site and better implant assimilation into the patient's body.
• Cardiovascular stents are specialized devices used to maintain arterial patency, especially drug-eluting stents. Usually composed of metal, these stents are covered in a polymer matrix containing medication. Everolimus, Sirolimus, and Paclitaxel are the medications most frequently utilized in these stents. Because they don't contain a medication coating, bare-metal stents may cause scarring where they are inserted.

 PRODUCT APPROVAL                                                                                                                 

• The process of maintenance has started.
• Make a plan for management.
• scheme for regulation
• Gather and remove export information
• deployment tailored to the local environment
• Go over and sign the conformity declaration.
• Neighborhood Watch Agency Xa mus rau
• Control and clearance
• Notifications to CLTD and information permissions
• Notices and licenses for production and trade, C and D.
• Evaluate the situation every three months.
• Six months' notice of expiration of CLTD certificate.
• Notes C and D: Disclosures and Transactions
• Document real-world D and D production data.
• Sew and send the certificate of renewal.

WHEN DO MEDICAL DEVICE HAVE TO BE TESTED

In the following situations, biocompatibility testing for medical equipment is necessary or at the very least warranted:

• Someone has created a new gadget.
• A change has been made to the production process.
• An additional material is added to the current apparatus.
• A shift has occurred regarding the materials' source or supplier.
• The cycle or process of sterilization has been altered.
• A foreign or unknown chemical is incorporated into the apparatus.
• The form or design of the item has been altered.
• A new therapeutic use for the device is now the plan.
• A design dossier, biocompatibility norm, or EU technical file has been updated.
• There have been changes to shipping, storage requirements, or shelf life.
• During postmarket surveillance, an adverse event associated with the device has been reported.
• A new type of packaging material has been used.
• Manufacturing or production anomalies have been found.

 MEDICAL DEVICE APPROVAL PROCESS

• A form 44 application was filed in accordance with Schedule Y's instructions.
• The published statistics, records, and medical records are then examined by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).
• Submission is then assessed by the Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC).
• Permission is given in accordance with Regulation 122A based on the recommendations made by MDAC
• The manufacturer also obtained a registration certificate under Form No. 41 and a three-year import permit via Form 

CLINICAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Studies on human performance are crucial for assessing the efficacy of recently created in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDMDs).The process advised for doctors receiving clinical or performance evaluations is comparable to this assessment. These assessments are predicated on thorough analyses or performance evaluation strategies that demonstrate the advancements achieved. The rights, security, and welfare of participants will be upheld at all times by adhering to the ethical guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki..(10).Medical devices classified under IMDR only need two-stage studies: research and research samples (recognition), experimental (exploratory) studies, and research, as opposed to the four stages of testing mandated by Schedule Y. A report was given specifying that any research or assessment pertaining to medical studies, in spite of its completion or early termination, is to be submitted to the CLA, the collaborating scientists, and the Ethics Committee.(5)  Clinical trials are necessary for all medical devices B, C, and D in India, subject to specific requirements. This criteria is applicable if the device is a new in vitro diagnostic device (IVDMD) or an investigational device made internally that has no known existing devices. If the product has been available for purchase in Australia, Canada, Japan, Europe, or the United States for a minimum of two years and the investment (CLA) is backed by pertinent clinical data, then no medical research license is necessary.Rather, a post-market inquiry will be necessary for the CLA, which will be based on the evaluation and suggestions of an expert panel. Before being shipped, Class C and Class D medical equipment in India need to be inspected to guarantee their performance and safety. A license will be given for Class A and Class B devices if the device has a free sale certificate from the country of origin and there are published research or clinical trials that show strong evidence of safety and effectiveness in that nation. Describe the fundamental processes for conducting clinical or performance evaluation studies, along with the crucial guidelines that must be adhered to.(5).

VIGILANCE REPORTING/POST MARKETING SURVEILLANCE DATA

For products that are on the market, medical device makers are required to produce Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) data or vigilance reports. The reporting protocols, any complaints received, and the corrective and preventive measures implemented must all be included in these reports. Post-marketing clinical studies are mandated by manufacturers to assess the safety and efficacy of new medical products. These studies involve performing safety evaluations, analyzing interactions with drugs, and assessing the device's efficacy for the purposes for which it was designed, such as mortality and morbidity. For devices without a predicate device, these studies are essential.[5]

The Safety Update Report (PSUR) for each medical equipment at a healthcare facility needs to:

1. Compile all pertinent new information from dependable sources and provide it.
2. Examine this data for disclosures from patients.
3. Give a summary of the company licensing regulations in each nation, emphasizing any notable variations with regard to safety concerns.
4. Tell us if you think any modifications to the product's specifications will enhance its functionality.

Changes to warnings, precautions, and contraindications are among the safety information that is updated in PSUR (Periodic Safety Update). It also emphasizes the significance of results from ongoing studies, successful trials, and fresh insights into previously unidentified medical disorders.[5] The Indian Product Inspection Program (MvPI), run by the Pharmacopoeia Commission of India, keeps an eye on the safety of medicinal products in an effort to reduce hazards and preserve a favorable risk-benefit ratio. This ongoing observation aids in recognizing and evaluating the negative consequences and malfunctions of medical equipment that could result in health issues, such as exposure discomfort and death. Since its launch, MvPI has been instrumental in keeping inferior products off the market and has prompted the recall of sixteen medical devices from the Indian market.[12]

In Vitro Diagnostic Law In The EU

A new EU program that upholds stringent requirements for device performance and safety throughout its lifecycle is advantageous to patients. The primary EU regulations governing medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) are the Medical Devices Directive (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostics Directive (IVDR). [7,8] Many approval procedures, akin to those in the EU, are also included in the IMDR framework to guarantee that goods are appropriate for their intended use. It covers every in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVDMD) as well as several medical device categories that the Medicines and Cosmetics Act of 1940 does not currently regulate.[5]

India And The EUROPE: Development And Viewpoints

Indian Medical Procedures ¬

• Medical equipment includes things like blood and blood bags with or without antibodies, in vitro diagnostic and surgical equipment, antibiotics and insecticides, and other warning devices.
• Drugs taken in India: As previously stated and not yet subject to the 1940
• Type of Distribution: A, B, C, and D (in increasing risk order) Class III Clinical Assessment: to create and enhance medical device identification. manufacturing or importing medical equipment.

European Medicines Agency Regulation

• Devices, instruments, software, and reagents intended for individual or combined usage in a clinical context are all considered medical devices. A number of functions are made possible by these devices, including in vitro diagnostics, anatomical alteration diagnosis, therapy, prevention, and rehabilitation.
• To address their needs, they do not rely on immunological, pharmacological, or metabolic approaches.
• Health Assessment -Medical evaluation include evaluating the functionality and safety of medical equipment. This assessment is carried out at various points over the device's lifetime to guarantee both its efficacy and security.

LEGISLATIVE ASPECTS  

Better ties within the medical equipment business resulted from the pharmaceutical industry's early 1980s precedent-setting for international regulatory coordination. By 1989, regulatory bodies in Europe, the US, and Japan had come to the conclusion that manufacturing, safety monitoring, and drug development all required standards. The International Conference for Harmonization of Standards for Registration of Medical Devices for Human Use (ICH) was established as a result of this agreement. ICH has committed itself to enhancing medication safety and efficacy via integrated management since its founding. The group operated between 1992 and 2011. At the start of the century, the GHTF played a significant role in advocating for the unification of health policies. The medical equipment markets in Europe and North America are significant, and since US rules are based on worldwide standards, they should be more stringent. Among the recent changes made to EU law is the Medical Treatment Directive (MDR), which was approved by the European Parliament in response to the PIP breast contract crisis. Even with this improvement, the MDR still falls short of the strict guidelines outlined in contemporary best practices, such cGMP. Care. Concerns exist regarding its efficacy, nevertheless. There might not be enough resources available to reevaluate medical equipment as a result of the closure of these establishments. These organizations frequently keep an eye on big businesses because of their thorough data and effective evaluation processes. They might also keep an eye on smaller businesses that might find it challenging to follow new rules. Nature. The diversity of regulatory authorities in the EU may result in uniformity in examination throughout the area, in contrast to the US, where inspections are overseen by the FDA and the Department of Health and Radiological Health (CDRH). The introduction of new rules, such as the MDR's mandate for comprehensive post-market surveillance of devices supplied in the EU, may be impacted by this spilt. With the exception of the product copy's CE certification, the primary goal prior to the introduction of the MDR (Medical Management System) was to guarantee the safety of the medical equipment. Nonetheless, the pharmaceutical industry's lessons highlight how crucial it is to set up a management system that keeps an eye on the product's whole life cycle. Since other countries' regulations are mainly based on the established model, the US and the EU were selected as the regulatory models.

NEW MEDICAL DEVICE RULES

Medical devices are critical to patient health and safety, thus manufacturing procedures will be closely regulated to meet high requirements. Comprehensive rules for medical devices have long been absent from India, despite the country's pharmaceutical laws being well-established for decades. Nonetheless, India's medical device regulatory environment has grown more active and powerful recently..[10] The Central Drug Regulatory Organization (CDSCO) established the Drug Regulatory Authority of India (IMDR) in January 2017, and it went into effect in January 2018. This action improves patient safety in India and satisfies the conditions set forth in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Comparing the planned revisions to the EU Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation (IVDR) to the Indian Medical Devices Rules (IMDR) will reveal both similarities and differences. The strict requirements these EU rules have for the functionality and security of medical equipment are well-known. India's reforms would concentrate on bolstering the pre- and post-market surveillance mechanisms, akin to the extensive tracking the EU conducts across a product's lifetime. Better compliance with international standards and a stronger focus on thorough information and process tracking are some examples of this. India wants to boost commerce, advance international collaboration, and improve equity through a similar strategy. Companies and regulators must take on more roles and duties in order to boost compliance.

In compliance with IMDR laws, this policy covers the following medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDMD).

• For import, sale, or export purposes, it might be allowed to be manufactured, sold, stocked, put on the market, or offered for sale.
• "May be designed for clinical research, testing, evaluation, testing, demonstration, or educational purposes."
• All medical device-related regulatory procedures are covered by IMDR. An introduction to the many sections, groups, policies, and product models is included in this. The term also encompasses the functions of regulatory agencies and authorities, as well as the undertakings associated with enrollment, production, distribution, documentation, assessment, and investigation.
• It also covers the responsibilities of managers and staff, how to register a lab, and how to sell medical supplies.
• Classification, financial ramifications, reporting bodies' roles, authorization, quality control, post-approval changes, post-implementation work monitoring (PMS), and any applicable exceptions are among the other subjects that are covered.

RISK ASPECTS

Risk factors differ for major depression (MDD) depending on the stage. In a similar vein, there are high expenses and dangers associated with developing innovative medical equipment. For these enterprises to succeed, proper and effective procedures must be used. Intense competition compels producers and manufacturers to look into risks that could compromise quality, timeliness, or cost throughout the medical device (MDD) process, despite their best efforts to minimize risk (27, 30). Medical technology typically fails in 90% of the initial attempts, according to Aguwa et al. (31), and this is a crucial factor for all MDD enterprises to take into account. Privitera et al.'s study from 24 looked at the hazards associated with manufacturing medical devices and emphasized that human engagement can lower design-process risks even in cases where standards implementation presents challenges. These problems can be resolved by manufacturers and users working together to design medical devices. Schmuller et al. (29) provide firms with ways for evaluating the hazards associated with their products. The integration of failure assessment (FMEA) and risk assessment (ISO 14971) during the Medical Systems (MDD) design process can enhance device quality, as demonstrated by Chen et al. (30). Research on respiratory systems demonstrates that by utilizing this technique to monitor system performance and lower risk, equipment dependability and overall performance can be enhanced from the outset.The primary risks were categorized by Rane and Kirkire (27) into three groups: third-party risks, internal variables, and customer risks. Monitoring client requirements and other matters. Failure to fulfill equipment quality standards, shoddy labeling and packing, or a breakdown in communication between sales teams, manufacturers, and end users can all lead to internal dangers. Inadequate end-user training, a lackluster examination of progress metrics, and subpar administration, clinical validation, and diagnostic planning are examples of third-party hazards. According to their investigation, the biggest risk factor is unmet user needs, hence it's imperative to address these needs.

When developing medical devices (MDD), identifying hazards and their origins is crucial to avoiding unfavorable user outcomes, speeding up development and production repair times, and cutting expenses. Reducing the frequency and intensity of risk requires careful planning and modeling of MDD procedures.

Medical Device Innovation In The Future

Medical devices enhance patients' quality of life, which has major benefits. For instance, implanted pacemakers can help regulate irregular heartbeats, urine catheters can help patients with incontinence, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes can help critically ill patients or those who are unable to feed the elderly. These devices alleviate a variety of medical conditions and lessen discomfort, which eventually enhances patient comfort and wellbeing

The Path Ahead

A significant shift in India's laws pertaining to medical devices and diagnostics was brought about by the release of the Indian Medical Device Rules (IMDR) in 2018. The rules seek to guarantee industry transparency and promote homegrown manufacturing of medical equipment. The In Vitro Diagnostics Directive (IVDR) and the Medical Regulations (MDR), the new EU legislation, are obviously different from the IMDR. More content is necessary. The MDR and IVDR focus on thorough testing, extensive data, and post-marketing research to set high criteria for safety and effectiveness. On the other hand, while IMDR has come a long way, it is still developing and could not yet be as deep and intricate as EU requirements By eliminating legislative discrepancies, India has a great opportunity to improve governance, transparency, and commercial access. Sometimes the information provided by the Indian Medical Regulations (IMDR), including the 2020 revisions, is erroneous or conflicting. For instance, there are notable distinctions between performance evaluations from the IMDR and clinical studies. The IMDR does not precisely define "clinical trial"; instead, it refers to the scheme's performance assessment in general. Moreover, the IMDR outlines the conditions that must be met in clinical trials in order to be assumed to have a meaningful effect, but it leaves out specifics of clinical implementation. The specifics of payouts in the event of a patient's injury or death, which are covered in the analysis part, are likewise absent from the performance analysis section. Moreover, there is little post-marketing monitoring (PMS) provided by IMDR. Both before and after the device is made available, clinical trials and performance reviews are crucial phases in the EU medical device lifecycle. The suggestions made by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) serve as the guidelines for this procedure. On the other hand, according to the IMDRF recommendations, CE criteria for in vitro diagnostic tests (IVDMDs) typically only need to be fulfilled once before the device may be commercialized. When granting a building or import license, it is crucial to guarantee the precision of the equipment's design and construction. Medical devices need to be CE marked in order to be registered in the EU. When there is adequate proof of the device's operation and safety evaluation, together with other necessary information, this certificate is granted..

Pre-market safety data is not needed in India for medical device registration. There will be more unfavorable incidents connected to this technology if there are no stringent constraints. Moreover, India lacks a public safety infrastructure to track and keep an eye on these unfavorable incidents. Public access to the EU-created European Medical Device Database (EUDAMED) is scheduled to begin in 2022. Research on Economics (PER). The Indian Medicines Act (IMDR), on the other hand, lacks a comparable or well-established reporting procedure. Furthermore, the Indian medical device industry is left with nothing since the IMDR lacks comprehensive criteria and procedures for these reports. Conversely, the EU legislation does not specify the post-marketing surveillance (PSUR) criteria that are included in the IMDR. India intends to assume control over electricity standards in order to minimize expenses and settle conflicts related to the reform of Indian medical rules (IMDR). IMDR includes other devices in its regulatory framework, even though many medical devices are now categorized as medicines under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. By fixing these components in the new system, it will be possible to bring all medical equipment under one management system. This action is anticipated to increase investment in the medical device sector, facilitate compliance, and enhance business conditions for Indian enterprises.

CONCLUSION:

It is crucial for health and safety that the primary product remains steady during manufacturing. The production process itself should be the source of good practice, not the examination of the items utilized in the batch. As we move forward, it will be important to make sure that resources are distributed consistently throughout the EU and the world and that the clearance process is transparent. The findings demonstrated that the standard design phase gate, an innovative and manageable concept, should serve as the foundation for the MDD (Medical Device Directive) procedure. Nevertheless, the paradigm must be used in conjunction with fresh approaches like client integration. The model ought to align with the existing legislation, taking into account any updates and associated hazards. It should also be flexible enough to accommodate modifications in the management procedure concerning standard evaluation and the most recent advancements impacting the labor market. The uniformity of the production process is the primary issue facing medicine. Rather of testing a particular product, good manufacturing practices (GMP) as outlined in medical regulations and current GMP standards should be included into the production process.

REFERENCE

1. Deloitte, NATHEALTH Medical devices making in India-a leap for Indian healthcare. 2016. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 04]. Available from: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/in/Documents/life-scienceshealth-care/in-lshc-medical-devices-making-in-india-noexp.pdf .
2. India – Overview of Medical Device Industry and Healthcare Statistics. Available via EMERGO. 2016. Jul, [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 30]. Available from: https://www.emergobyul.com/resources/market-india .
3. Union Budget of India 2020-21, Rebuilding Momentum. Available via PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited. 2020. Feb, [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 20]. Available from: https://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/budget/2020/pwcunion-budget-analysis.pdf .
4. Markan S, Verma Y. Indian medical device sector: Insights from patent filing trends. BMJ Innov. 2017;3:167– 75. [Google Scholar]
5. Medical Device Rules, 2017: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Available via CDSCO. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 08]. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Medical-DeviceDiagnostics/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/
6. Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,                 Government of India. Available via CDSCO. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 08]. Available from:https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/
7. European Commission. Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 20]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX:32017R074
8. European Commission. In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) – Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on in vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices and Repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 08]. Available from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0746&rid=6 .
9. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 03];European Commission. Getting ready for the new regulations. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/health/md_newregulations/getting_ready_en . [Google Scholar]
10. Shukla S, Gupta M, Pandit S, Thomson M, Shivhare A, Kalaiselvan V, et al. Implementation of adverse event reporting for medical devices, India. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2020;98:206. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 30];Strengthening of Materiovigilance Programme of India (MvPI) in the country; Letter from DCGI to all states drugs authorities (26 November 2019). Available via CDSCO. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/Medical-Device-Diagnostics/ [Google Scholar]
12. [Last accessed on 2020 Jun 18];Directorate General of Health Services. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India (Product recall). CDSCO. Available from: https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/consumer/Product-Recall/ [Google Scholar]
13. Maresova P, Kacetl J. Legislative and ethical aspects of introducing new technologies in medical care for senior citizens in developed countries. Clin Inter Aging. (2016) 11:977–84. 10.2147/CIA.S104433 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Gupta B, Thomke S. An exploratory study of product development in emerging economies: evidence from medical device testing in India. R&D Manag. (2018) 48:485–501. 10.1111/radm.12324 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Ocampo JU, Kaminski PC. Medical device development, from technical design to integrated product development. J Med Eng Technol. (2019) 43:287–304.10.1080/03091902.2019.1653393 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Niimi S. Practice of regulatory science (Development of medical devices). Yakugaku Zasshi. (2017) 137:431–7. 10.1248/yakushi.16-00244-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Gilmartin C, Arbe-Barnes EH, Diamond M, Fretwell S, McGivern E, Vlazaki M, et al.. Varsity medical ethics debate 2018: constant health monitoring - the advance of technology into healthcare. Phil Ethics Hum Med. (2018) 13:12. 10.1186/s13010-018-0065-0 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, Levitan B, Christopher S, Zandlo K, et al.. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. (2016) 19:746–50. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Ivlev I, Kneppo P, Bartak M. Multicriteria decision analysis: a multifaceted approach to medical equipment management. Technol Econ Dev Econ. (2014) 20:576–89. 10.3846/20294913.2014.943333 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Klar E. Medical Device Regulation as current challenge for the legally safe introduction of new technologies. Der Chirurg. (2018) 89:755–9. 10.1007/s00104-018-0705-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Millson MR, Wilemon D. Impact of new product development (NPD) proficiency and NPD entry strategies on product quality and risk. R&D Manag. (2008) 38:491–509. 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00534.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Martin JL, Barnett J. Integrating the results of user research into medical device development: insights from a case study. BMC Med Inform Dec Making. (2012) 12:74. 10.1186/1472-6947-12-74 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Pietzsch JB, Shluzas LA, Paté-Cornell ME, Yock PG, Linehan JH. Stage-gate process for the development of medical devices. J Med Dev. (2009) 3:14–21. 10.1115/1.3148836 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Privitera MB, Evans M, Southee D. Human factors in the design of medical devices – Approaches to meeting international standards in the European Union and USA. Appl Ergonom. (2017) 59:251–63. 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.034 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Gerber C, Goevert K, Schweigert-Recksiek S, Lindemann U. Agile development of physical products—A case study of medical device product development. Smart Innov Syst Technol. (2019) 135:823–34. 10.1007/978-981-13- 5977-4_69 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Niimi S. Practice of regulatory science (Development of medical devices). Yakugaku Zasshi. (2017) 137:431–7. 10.1248/yakushi.16-00244-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Rane SB, Kirkire MS. Interpretive structural modelling of risk sources in medical device development process. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag. (2017) 8:451–64. 10.1007/s13198-015-0399-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Aguwa CC, Monplaisir L, Sylajakumari PA. Rules modification on a Fuzzy-based modular architecture for medical device design and development. IIE Transact Healthcare Syst Eng. (2012) 2:50–61. 10.1080/19488300.2012.666630 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Schmuland C. Value-added medical-device risk management. IEEE Trans Device Mater Reliab. (2005) 5:488– 93. 10.1109/TDMR.2005.857860 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Chan SL, Ip WH, Zhang WJ. Integrating failure analysis and risk analysis with quality assurance in the design phase of medical product development. Int J Prod Res. (2012) 50:2190–203. 10.1080/00207543.2011.565084 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Kuca K, Maresova P, Penhaker M, Selamat A. The potential of medical device industry in technological and economical context. Therap Clin Risk Manag. (2015) 11:1505–14. 10.2147/TCRM.S88574 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Health - OECD Data citován 19. zárí 2018]. Available online at http://data.oecd.org/health.htm (accessed September 19, 2018).
33. 33.Songkajorn Y, Thawesaengskulthai N. Medical device innovation development process. Int J Innov Technol Manag. (2014) 11:1450027 10.1142/S0219877014500278 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Rome BN, Kramer DB, Kesselheim AS. Approval of high-risk medical devices in the US: implications for clinical cardiology. Curr Card Rep. (2014) 16:489. 10.1007/s11886-014-0489-0 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. NVCA Research Resources Patient Capital, National Venture Capital Research Resources. Available online at: https://nvca.org/research/research-resources/ (accessed September 19, 2018).
36. Goldenberg SJ, Gravagna J. A real-world perspective: building and executing an integrated customer engagement roadmap that bridges the gaps in traditional medical device development processes. J Med Market. (2018) 16:41–9. 10.1177/1745790418770598 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Fisher GJ, Qualls WJ. A framework of interfirm open innovation: relationship and knowledge based perspectives. J Bus Industr Mark. (2018) 33:240–50. 10.1108/JBIM-11-2016-0276 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Medical Device Clinical Evaluation Working Group Clinical evaluation. Doc no. IMDRF/MDCE WG/N56 FINAL:2019. International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 03]. Available from: http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-191010-mdce-n56.pdf .
39. European Commission. EUDAMED - European Database on Medical Devices. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 03]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/tools/eudamed/#/screen/home
40. Maresova P, Cerna L. Patients:attitudes to the use of modern technologies in the treatment of diabetes. Patient Prefer Adher. (2016) 10:1869–79. 10.2147/PPA.S118040 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Maresova P, Tomsone S, Lameski P, Madureira J, Mendes A, Zdravevski E, et al.. Technological solutions for older people with Alzheimer's disease: review. Curr Alzheimer Res. (2018) 15:975–83. 10.2174/1567205015666180427124547 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Lubowitz JH, Brand JC, Rossi MJ. Medical device and pharmaceutical industry employees as medical research publication authors. Arthroscopy. (2018) 34:2745–7. 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.05.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Augustýnek M, Laryš D, Kubí?ek J, Marešová P, Ku?a K. Use effectiveness of medical devices: a case study on the deployment of ultrasonographic devices. Therap Innov Regul Sci. (2018) 52:499–506. 10.1177/2168479017739291 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Maisel WH. Medical device regulation: an introduction for the practicing physician. Am Coll Phys. (2004) (140):296–302. 10.7326/0003-4819-140-4-200402170-00012 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Hamrell MR. An overview of the US regulatory environment for drug-device and biologic-device combination products. Drug Inform J. (2006) 40:23–32. 10.1177/009286150604000104 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Aitchison GA, Hukins DWL, Parry JJ, Shepherd DET, Trotman SG. A review of the design process for implantable orthopedic medical devices. Open Biomed Eng J. (2009) 3:21–7. 10.2174/1874120700903010021 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Alexander K, Clarkson PJ. A validation model for the medical devices industry. J Eng Design. (2002) 13:197– 204. 10.1080/09544820110108890 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]