Tag: medical devices

Medical Devices Aren’t Regulated in SA, but that is Set to Change

Most medical devices are used in healthcare settings but some like bandages, thermometers, condoms, and blood pressure monitors are used at home. Photo by Mockup Graphics on Unsplash

By Catherine Tomlinson

Unlike with medicines, and with a few exceptions, South Africa’s regulator does not assess whether diagnostic tests and other medical devices on the market are safe and work as they are supposed to. The regulator has however started down a road that should eventually lead to the regulation of all medical devices in the country.

From scalpels to surgical robots, finger-prick diagnostic tests to MRIs, thermometers to wearable AI-powered health monitoring devices, bandages to prosthetics: the range of products classified as medical devices is vast.

Some medical devices are used briefly and then disposed of after a single use, while others are designed to stay in our bodies for long periods of time, such as implants to prevent pregnancy and pacemakers to help the heart beat regularly.

While most medical devices are used in medical settings, some, like bandages, thermometers, condoms, and blood pressure monitoring devices, are used at home.

The World Health Organization estimates that there are more than two million different types of medical devices used around the world. Given the enormous diversity of medical devices, it can be tricky to see what links all these products together.

One answer, and essentially the one used in South African law, is that it is the intended use of the device. A medical device is thus simply any device that is intended to be used to prevent, diagnose, monitor, or treat a disease, injury, or other medical condition.

Because medical devices are sold for medical purposes, they require regulatory oversight to ensure that they are safe to use and work as intended. But in South Africa, this regulatory oversight is not yet fully in place, and you can’t always trust that devices do what they claim to do, or that tests are accurate.

‘Inaccurate readings’

On a recent webinar hosted by FIND, an international non-profit engaged in the development of diagnostics for low resource settings, the chairperson of NGO SA Diabetes Advocacy, Kirsten de Klerk, told participants that “a lot of people assume that if a medical device is available for purchase, it has been correctly tested and approved for use” but “unfortunately, that’s not the case”.

De Klerk added: “I have unfortunately had community members sharing stories of life-threatening situations because of inaccurate readings” from continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). These are medical devices used by people with diabetes to monitor their blood sugar level.

To address the challenge of poor-quality CGMs on the market, South African diabetes advocates and FIND launched a tool to assist people with diabetes and healthcare providers to identify and use monitors that have been properly assessed for safety and functioning.

But what role does the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) play in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices used in the country, and what steps is it taking to better protect the public?

A mandate to regulate

Though medical devices aren’t yet registered, SAHPRA does have a legal mandate to regulate medical devices. The relevant legal requirements were introduced in the 2015 Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Act 14. Before the 2015 Amendment Act came into force in 2017, only electromagnetic or radiation-emitting medical devices were regulated in South Africa.

The 2015 amendments provided for the establishment of SAHPRA to replace the Medicines Control Council as the country’s health products regulator and expanded SAHPRA’s regulatory scope to cover all medical devices.

SAHPRA’s first big move towards regulating the medical device industry was to introduce requirements for medical device companies to be licensed as medical device establishments. Medical device companies were informed that they would need a medical device establishment license to operate in the country in a government gazette notice issued in 2017. (Manufacturers of the lowest risk products – Class A medical devices that don’t have a measuring function and/or are not required to be sterile – are currently exempt from the licensing requirements.)

Today, over 2 500 companies hold active medical devices establishment licenses from SAHPRA. In their applications for these licenses, companies must list the medical devices that they will manufacture, import, or wholesale in South Africa and the establishment licenses that they are granted are specific to the class of products that they are manufacturing or handling.

Medical devices are classed in four groups from lowest to highest risk products, based on the risk posed by the product to patients and the broader public health. Bandages for example are classed as low risk, while heart valves are classed as high risk. Using a risk-based approach allows SAHPRA to harmonise how medical devices are regulated in South Africa with international norms and will allow the regulator to prioritise review of high-risk products as it phases in requirements for registration of medical devices used in the country.

In addition to listing the devices that they manufacture, distribute, or wholesale, companies seeking medical device establishment licenses from SAHPRA are also required to provide a declaration regarding the quality management systems that they have in place.

Critically, however, the devices themselves are not yet being assessed by SAHPRA.

Dr Dimakatso Mathibe, senior manager of SAHPRA’s medical device unit, told Spotlight that more than 200 000 different medical devices are used in South Africa. While over two thousand companies hold active medical device establishment licenses, she explained that a single company may be importing over a hundred products. She noted that as SAHPRA has increased the regulatory requirements for operating in South Africa, some medical device companies have voluntarily withdrawn from the market.

ISO 13485 certification

SAHPRA’s second big move, which is now being rolled out, is the introduction of requirements for medical device companies to gain ISO 13485 certification verifying that they meet international quality management standards.

Medical device companies operating in South Africa can receive certification that they meet ISO 13485 standards from an international or local conformity assessment body that has been accredited to provide this certification.

When SAHPRA first introduced medical device establishment licenses, it did not require companies to have ISO 13485 certification, as it was concerned that enforcing this too quickly could disrupt access to medical devices in the country. This was in part due to the lack of local conformity assessment bodies accredited by the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) to grant this certification at the time.

John Ndalamo, accreditation manager for SANAS’ certification programme, told Spotlight that six local conformity assessment bodies have now been accredited to provide ISO 13485 certification.

SAHPRA now requires that companies renewing their five-year medical device establishment licenses provide either proof of ISO 13485 certification or evidence that the company has begun the process of seeking this certification.

What about regulation of the actual devices?

While important strides have been made by SAHPRA toward regulating the medical device industry, medical devices themselves still remain mostly unregulated in South Africa.

What this means is that, as pointed out by SA Diabetes Advocacy, medical devices may currently be marketed in the country without an independent regulator confirming that they are safe to use and perform as advertised.

The registration of the over 200 000 medical devices in use in the country is a mammoth job. Mathibe said that when SAHPRA introduces requirements for the registration of medical devices, it will do so in a phased and transitional manner. She explained that the call-up of medical devices for registration will likely be phased by product risk classes and conditions. Presumably, SAHPRA will start with the highest risk products and work down from there.

Assessing feasibility

SAHPRA is conducting a feasibility study of its intended approach to register medical devices. Companies holding medical device establishment licenses have been asked to voluntarily participate in the study.

In documentation published for the feasibility study, SAHPRA indicated it plans to include 32 medical devices used for HIV and TB in the study. These will cover in vitro diagnostic tests, condoms, and X-ray devices used for TB screening.

SAHPRA also aims for half of the products included in the study to be manufactured locally and the other half to be imported. In doing so, SAHPRA can use the study to test its approach for registering products that are evaluated locally, as well as products assessed in other countries with which it has a regulatory reliance mechanism in place (meaning it can rely on regulatory evaluations performed in these countries).

How will safety and performance be assessed in the feasibility study?

Mathibe said that SAHPRA will not directly assess the safety and performance of medical devices in the feasibility study. Instead, this will be done by accredited conformity assessment bodies, which is the same approach used by regulators in Europe. The assessment made by the conformity assessment bodies will then be used by SAHPRA in determining whether a product should be approved for use in the country.

For medical devices already registered in jurisdictions with which SAHPRA has a reliance mechanism in place, like the European Union, Australia, and Japan, companies can submit evidence of such conformity assessments and marketing approval. SAHPRA can then use this information to help make its own registration decisions.

Devices that are not approved by a regulatory authority recognised by SAHPRA, must undergo a safety and performance assessment by a locally accredited conformity assessment body.

Mathibile said insights from the study will be shared with stakeholders next year, and the lessons will help inform how SAHPRA introduces medical device registration in South Africa.

Emergency authorisation of COVID-19 and Mpox medical devices

While SAHPRA has not yet registered medical devices, it introduced rules in 2020 for emergency authorisation listings for certain medical devices used for COVID-19 in South Africa, and it announced in 2024 that diagnostic tests for Mpox required approval from SAHPRA before they could be used in the country.

SAHPRA has thus “listed” multiple COVID-19 tests and two Mpox diagnostic tests as approved for use in South Africa. Khanyisile Nkuku of SAHPRA’s medical devices unit told Spotlight that the diagnostic products for COVID-19 and Mpox received interim Section 21 authorisation.

Section 21 authorisation allows for the use of unregistered products under certain conditions, including public health emergencies. This mechanism has been used by SAHPRA both to respond to the public health needs posed by COVID-19 and Mpox and to prevent the use of substandard products, which was a challenge faced in the early days of COVID-19.

Nkuku added while South Africa has had a relatively low number of Mpox cases, South Africa is a leading supplier of in vitro diagnostics to the rest of the continent, including countries facing large Mpox crises, and so SAHPRA shares the responsibility of ensuring that Mpox diagnostics used on the continent work properly and is working with the African Medicines Regulatory Harmonisation programme to review Mpox diagnostics.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

A Smart Contact Lens Battery Powered by Tears

Photo by Arteum.ro on Unsplash

Singapore scientists have developed a flexible battery as thin as a human cornea, which can store electricity when immersed in a saline solution such as tears. The scientists described their research in Nano Energy, and believe that this technology could one day power smart contact lenses.

Smart contact lenses are high-tech contact lenses capable of displaying visible information on the cornea and can be used to access augmented reality as well as monitoring health and their normal function of correcting vision. But they need power, and existing rechargeable batteries rely on wires or induction coils that contain metal and are unsuitable for use in the human eye, as they are uncomfortable and present risks to the user.

The battery, developed by Nanyang Technological University, is made of biocompatible materials and does not contain wires or toxic heavy metals, such as those in lithium-ion batteries or wireless charging systems. It has a glucose-based coating that reacts with the sodium and chloride ions in the saline solution surrounding it, while the water the battery contains serves as the ‘wire’ or ‘circuitry’ for electricity to be generated.

The battery could also be powered by human tears as they contain sodium and potassium ions, at a lower concentration. Testing the current battery with a simulated tear solution, the researchers showed that the battery’s life would be extended an additional hour for every twelve-hour wearing cycle it is used. The battery can also be charged conventionally by an external power supply.

Associate Professor Lee Seok Woo, from NTU’s School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE), who led the study, said: “This research began with a simple question: could contact lens batteries be recharged with our tears? There were similar examples for self-charging batteries, such as those for wearable technology that are powered by human perspiration.

“However, previous techniques for lens batteries were not perfect as one side of the battery electrode was charged and the other was not. Our approach can charge both electrodes of a battery through a unique combination of enzymatic reaction and self-reduction reaction. Besides the charging mechanism, it relies on just glucose and water to generate electricity, both of which are safe to humans and would be less harmful to the environment when disposed, compared to conventional batteries.”

The research team has filed for a patent through NTUitive, NTU’s innovation and enterprise company. They are also working towards commercialising their invention.

Cry me a current

The team demonstrated their invention using a simulated human eye. The battery, which is about 0.5 millimetres-thin generates electrical power by reacting with the basal tears – the constant tears that create a thin film over our eyeballs – for the devices embedded within the lenses to function.

The flexible and flat battery discharges electricity through a process called reduction when its glucose oxidase coating reacts with the sodium and chloride ions in the tears, generating power and current within the contact lenses.

The team demonstrated that the battery could produce a current of 45 microamperes and a maximum power of 201 microwatts, which would be sufficient to power a smart contact lens.

Laboratory tests showed that the battery could be charged and discharged up to 200 times. Typical lithium-ion batteries have a lifespan of 300 to 500 charging cycles.

The team recommends that the battery should be placed for at least eight hours in a suitable solution that contains a high quantity of glucose, sodium and potassium ions, to be charged while the user is asleep.

Source: Nanyang Technology University

Deaths From Medical Devices Are Underreported in the US

Photo by Vidal Balielo Jr. from Pexels
Photo by Vidal Balielo Jr. from Pexels

Researchers have found that a number of deaths related to medical device adverse events were improperly categorised in the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, according to a new study.

Flagging terms commonly associated with death, the study investigators used a natural language processing algorithm to identify 290 141 reports where serious injury or death was reported; 52.1% of these events were reported as deaths, and 47.9% were classified as either malfunction, injury, or missing (report was uncategorised), reported Christina Lalani, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Overall, 23% of reports with a death were not placed in the death category, amounting to some 31 552 reports filed from December 31, 1991, to April 30, 2020.

Whether to classify the event as a malfunction, injury, death, or ‘other’ is up to the physician or manufacturer. According to the FDA, the reporter is required to categorise an adverse event as an official death if the cause of death is unknown, or if the device “may have caused or contributed to a death.”

The three most common product codes among the adverse event reports were for ventricular assist bypass devices (38 708 reports), dialysate concentrate for haemodialysis (25 261 reports), and transcervical contraceptive tubal occlusion devices (14 387 reports).

The natural language processing algorithm scanned through reports, identifying terms such as “patient died,” “patient expired,” “could not be resuscitated,” and “time of death.” Of the 70 terms that were associated with a death, 62 (88.6%) were found among miscategorised adverse event reports involving a patient death. And, out of all 62, there were 17 terms that had an estimated percentage of 100%, meaning that “every time that term was used, the patient had died, even though the reporter had not classified the report as death,” the team wrote.

Only 18 terms had sample sizes large enough for researchers to calculate confidence intervals; among them, the words “death” or “deaths” were linked to 12% of adverse event reports in which a patient died, but were classified as malfunction, other, or missing — the highest rate of all the analysed terms.

The researchers acknowledged a major limitation in that only reports with at least one death-associated term were included, in contrast to all the reports from the MAUDE database. Improperly categorised deaths likely contribute to an underestimate.

“The classification chosen by the reporter is vital, as the FDA must review all adverse events reported as deaths, which is not the case for other reporting categories,” the authors wrote. Improving the reports’ accuracy is crucial, since patient death frequency can prompt the FDA to pursue investigations into the device’s safety, they added.

The researchers pointed out an inherent conflict of interest as 95.9% of the reports evaluated in the study were submitted by manufacturers.

“It may not be in their interest to facilitate identification of serious problems with their own devices in a timely manner,” they wrote. “There have been multiple instances of delays by manufacturers in reporting serious malfunctions and deaths that were associated with medical devices, as well as complete failures to report.”

Therefore, it’s likely that a significant number of patients have been unknowingly treated with devices that were later revealed to be dangerous, Dr Lalani and colleagues noted. For example, they referenced the reporting failures that occurred from 2002 to 2013, when 32 000 women reported adverse events associated with the permanent birth control device Essure while the FDA only received 1023 adverse event reports from the manufacturer.

They concluded that patients and care providers should submit reports directly to the FDA as well as or instead of the manufacturer.

Source: MedPage Today

Journal information: Lalani C, et al “Reporting of death in US Food and Drug Administration medical device adverse event reports in categories other than death” JAMA Intern Med 2021; DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.3942.