Availability of Medical Devices in Europe After MDR Implementation – Findings From Medtech Europe Survey Report
Implementation of the MDR is a top priority for the medical devices industry, which has committed significant resources to comply with the new requirements. Despite its efforts, the sector remains seriously held back by the slow and piecemeal implementation of the new regulatory framework.

MedTech Survey Report

MedTech Europe published a Survey Report analysing the availability of Medical Devices in 2022 in connection to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) implementation.

Methods

The survey was sent to all manufacturer members of MedTech Europe, and the answers were gathered between the 4th and 29th of April 2022. The survey included 30 questions divided in to two core sets. The first part was mainly aimed at assessing the capacity of Notified Bodies and the certification under the MDR while the second part included some additional questions. Only one submission per manufacturer was allowed.

Summary of results

  • The survey represents an estimated 60-70% market revenue coverage.
  • MDR certificates have not been issued yet for >85% of the >500 000 devices previously certified under the directives.
  • Larger companies are actively filing under MDR.
  • Review is still ongoing for 70% of submitted industry applications.
  • The time-to-certification with MDR-designated Notified Bodies is taking 13-18 months on average. This is double the time historically needed for certification under the Directives.
  • >50% of respondents plan portfolio reductions.
  • 33% of these companies’ medical devices are currently planned for discontinuation.
  • All product categories are impacted by potential device discontinuations.
  • At least 15 % and up to 30% of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) still have no access to an MDR-designated Notified Body.
  • ~50% of respondents are deprioritising the EU market (or will do so) as the geography of choice for first regulatory approval of their new devices.
  • >20% of respondents attribute delays in MDR certification to the publication of new or revised MDCG guidance.

Volume of devices certified under the MDR

The majority of the devices on the market is yet to transition to the MDR. Certificates have not been issued for approximately 85% of the more than 500 000 devices estimated to be covered by the Directive’s certificates. New devices and class III devices were more likely to lead to longer certification timescales.

This is possible due to delays of the time-to-certification by MDR-designated Notified Bodies (13-18 months on average, two times more than the time needed for certification under the Directives), which reflects in a slow progress to certification (only 14% of all certificates were issued so far). Additionally, it is important to note that 54,820 Class I devices will be up-classified under the MDR.

The challenges with Notified Bodies include: unpredictable certification time, lack of predictability, lack of responsiveness, non-harmonised interpretations of MDR requirements and non-harmonised interpretations of MDCG guidelines.

Changes in portfolio

83% of the portfolio of both large and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) who have legacy products, is composed of “legacy” devices.

However, over half of all survey respondents plan portfolio reductions, foreseeing to discontinue 33% of their devices. MDR implementation will affect transversely all categories of medical devices, which can have a prejudicial impact on healthcare systems. The categories of devices most likely to be impacted by portfolio reductions are orthopaedics, traumatology, rehabilitation and rheumatology; surgical instruments; medical software and devices for cardiology.

Impact on SMEs

The MDR have a more pronounced impact on SMEs than on larger companies with up to 30% of SMEs without a designated Notified Body capable of certification under the MDR. The progress to certification is also slower, with only 7% of MDR certificates issued for SMEs compared to 13% on average.

On the other hand, all current Notified Bodies used by the large company respondents are MDR-designated. The explanations for lower transition rate to MDR for SMEs include: costs of recertification, time, and resources for MDR becoming too high.

Innovation is leaving Europe

Approximately half of the respondents are deprioritising (or will do so) the EU market as choice for first regulatory approval of new devices, making evident that the MDR has not supported innovation in the EU.

Large companies are more likely to prioritise USA for new approvals while SMEs prioritised equally EU and USA. This means that approximately half of the EU based innovation will in fact benefit patients in the USA first, not in the EU.

MDCG guidance

Data suggests that MDCG guidance documents can slow down the certification process and lead to rework of the submitted applications.

More than 1 in 5 companies have reported a delay in certification due to a publication of new or revised MDCG guidance. Almost half of all delays led to some level of reworking, with larger companies to be more impacted.

The guidance documents associated with the delay were: MDCG 2021-24 Guidance on classification of medical devices; MDCG 2020-5 Clinical evaluation – Equivalence: A guide for manufacturers and notified bodies and MDCG 2020-6 Guidance on sufficient clinical evidence for legacy devices.

Conclusions

The implementation of the MDR in the EU is having a serious effect on the EU medical device market. This will be felt by EU patients and health systems.

The data also reveal that the MDR impacts differently larger versus smaller (SME) companies, showing clearly that SMEs are worse off.

Few devices have so far successfully transitioned to the MDR, and timescales for certification are now at an all-time high.

There is a urgent need for immediate action by decision-makers to help keep needed medical devices available in Europe.

Note: The survey performed by MedTech Europe represents an estimated 60-70 % of EU market revenue coverage, and with 475 respondents across large and SME companies there should be confidence in the conclusions drawn.

further
reading

cosmetic products

United Kingdom Restricts the Use of BHT in Cosmetic Products

The United Kingdom has taken a significant step in regulating the use of Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) in cosmetic products. This move is crucial for distributors, manufacturers, and importers to ensure compliance and maintain the safety of their products in the UK market.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Great Britain Mandatory Classification List (MCL): cosmetic ingredients added.

On March 12, 2024, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) updated the GB Mandatory Classification List (MCL) by adding 25 new chemical substances, as mandated by Article 37 of the GB Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation. This update impacts substances identified as cosmetic ingredients with proposed Carcinogen, Mutagen, or Reprotoxic (CMR) classifications under Article 15 of the UK Cosmetics Regulation (UKCR). Notably, 2-ethylhexanoic acid and its zinc salt, along with Dimethyltolylamine, are among those facing potential bans and additions to the UK Cosmetics Regulation’s Annex II. These changes will come into effect on September 2, 2025.

Read More »
cosmetic products

New coating for TiO2 (nano) – is it safe?

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) published the Preliminary Opinion on new coating for Titanium Dioxide (nano). It declared the data was not enough to draw conclusions regarding the safety of this alternative coating, as more evidence of similarity to other nanomaterials is necessary.

Read More »
cosmetic products

New EU cosmetic restrictions on Cyclic Volatile Methyl Siloxanes (cVMS)

Cyclic volatile methyl siloxanes (cVMS) have raised environmental concerns because of their persistence and bioaccumulative properties. In light of these concerns, the European Union has extended restrictions on substances like D4, D5, and D6 in cosmetic products. New regulations will further limit the concentration of these compounds in both rinse-off and leave-on products, with compliance deadlines set for 2026 and 2027.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Citral under review: SCCS Preliminary Opinion

The SCCS was tasked by the European Commission to evaluate if the safety levels for Citral, determined through QRA2 based on skin sensitization induction, are sufficient to safeguard consumers. A preliminary opinion was released.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Are sunscreens with Benzophenone-4 safe?

Benzophenone-4 is commonly known as a UV-filter in cosmetic products. Learn what the final opinion of SCCS states about Benzophenone’s safety profile as a UV-filter in cosmetic products.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Is Aluminium in cosmetics safe for human health?

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) published its Final Opinion on the safety of Aluminium in cosmetic products. This follows a lengthy review process that began in 2013 when the SCCS was first mandated to evaluate the potential health risks of Aluminium (Al) and its compounds in cosmetics.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Silver in Cosmetics: SCCS preliminary opinion.

Ingredients: SILVER

The recent preliminary opinion from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) regarding silver in cosmetics is crucial for consumers and manufacturers. This article breaks down the key points, making it easier to understand the implications and stay informed.

Read More »
news & updates

EU Ecolabel adoption and recognition are on the rise

The Ecolabel certification is a comprehensive program focused on fostering sustainable practices. It evaluates products based on life cycle assessments, where every phase of said life cycle must abide by strict standards to attain the Ecolabel certification. The overarching objective of this certification is minimizing environmental harm from production or consumption activities.

Read More »