MAY 2020

SPECIAL REPRINT
Journal of Medical Device Regulation, 2020, 17(2), 21-27

A Notified Body’s
perspective on therequirements for new
interactions with
Notified Bodies under the
MDR with respect tocombination products

Editorial Advisory Board

Haroon Atchia

Rainer Hill

David Jefferys

Elena Jugo

CEO & Technical Director,
Quality First International,
London, UK

Deputy Director General,
BVMed, Berlin, Germany

Senior Vice President
Global Regulatory,
Government Relations,Public Affairs and Patient
Safety, Eisai Europe Ltd,
London, UK

Senior Manager,
Regulatory Affairs,
Codman & Shurtleff, Inc,
USA (retired)James Kuhn Jr

Mario Nacinovich

Regulatory Affairs
Manager, ANIMAS(Johnson & Johnson
Company), Chesterbrook,
PA, USA

Global Head,
Communications andMarketing, AiCure, USA

Luciano Oliveira
Ferreira, RAC

Eliana Silva
de Moraes

Quality Manager Brazil,
Euroimmun, São Paulo,
BrazilSenior Business Partner,
Silva de Moraes &Associes, Brazil

Paul SimVal Theisz

Edward C Wilson Jr

S&P Medical Devices
Knowledge Manager,
BSI Healthcare, UK

Director Regulatory &Clinical Affairs, Code ofPractice, Medical
Technology Associationof Australia

Partner, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Washington DC,
USAPublisher
Published by Global Regulatory Press
Address: Units 317/318 Burford Business Centre,
11 Burford Road, Stratford, London E15 2ST, UK
Editorial Director: Victoria Clark BSc, MSc
Tel: +44 (0)1305 264797
Email: editor@globalregulatorypress.com
Website: GlobalRegulatoryPress.com

Subscriptions to the Journal of Medical
Device Regulation• receive four issues per year (February, May, August,November)• supplied as a PDF by website download• articles are fully searchable (e.g. by country/topic) in
the secure subscribers’ area online• access to the full back issues library (since 2004)• Editorial Advisory Board of international medical
device experts

Conditions of saleAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, without the priorpermission in writing of the publisher. Within the UK,
exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing forthe purpose of research or private study or criticism orreview, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic
reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries
concerning reproduction outside those terms and inother countries should be sent to the publisher.
This publication is sold subject to the condition that itshall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold,
hired out or otherwise circulated without the
publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding coverother than that in which it is published and without asimilar condition including this condition being imposedon the subsequent purchaser.

• exclusive special offers
A single user licence is a personal subscription to the
Journal. Order online for 1 year or 2 years (saving 5%)
at GlobalRegulatoryPress.com.
A multi user licence is a corporate subscription to the
Journal. Options are for 2–10 users and 10+ users.
Order online for 1 year or 2 years (saving 5%) at
GlobalRegulatoryPress.com.
A multi site licence covers access for users located in
more than one location. Please email us for a
personalised quote.
Academic discounts are available. Please contact us formore information.

Advertising• Journal: the reference source for global medical
device and IVD regulatory professionals• Online: at GlobalRegulatoryPress.com

Whilst all reasonable care is taken in the compilationand preparation of each issue, it is provided without
liability in its application and use.

Copyright © 2020 Global Regulatory Press.
All rights reserved.

• Email: with highly targeted recipients in the medical
device and IVD industries
If you would like to place an order, or you have any
questions about our advertising opportunities, pleasecontact Marija Capek, Medical Device Advertising &Sales Manager at marija@globalregulatorypress.com.

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations

A Notified Body’s perspective on the requirements for new interactions with
Notified Bodies under the MDR with respect to combination products

Short glossary•

Article 117 of Regulation (EU) 2017/7451 on medical devices (the MDR) describes therequirements for the device part of drug/device combinations regulated as medicines.

•

Rule 13 of Directive 93/42/EEC (the MDD) specifies the requirements for medical devices
containing ancillary medicinal substances under the MDD.

•

Rule 14 of the MDR sets out the requirements for medical devices containing ancillary medicinal
substances under the MDR.

•

Rule 21 of the MDR contains additional rules for medical devices containing substances.

•

Annex I to the MDR lists the General Safety and Performance Requirements that medical devices
should follow as part of conformity assessment.

•

Annex II to the MDR describes the documentation requirements for MDR applications.

Introduction
The term ‘combination products’ could apply to many medical devices and medicinal products; thisarticle will discuss three different types of combination products:•

Drug/Device Combinations (DDCs). If a medical device used to administer a medicinal product isplaced on the market in such a way that the device and medicinal product form a single integral
product, which is intended exclusively for use in the given combination and which is not reusable,
this is a medicinal product regulated under the Medicinal Products Directive (2001/83/EC)2,3. The
medicinal product has the principal action and the device has a supportive role, often aiding
delivery. Examples include pre-filled syringes, auto injector pens and pressurised metered dose
inhalers.

•

Device/drug combinations. In this case, the device has the principal mode of action and the
medicinal substance has an ancillary action. Examples include drug eluting stents or wounddressings with anti-microbial agents.

•

Devices containing substances. In this case, the substances are not medicinal products but may
be absorbed by the human body. Examples include wound irrigation solutions or paraffin
dressings.

© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 202021

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations
Each type of combination product has its own regulatory path and regulatory challenges. The MDR,
which comes into force on 26 May 2021, introduces a new requirement under Article 117 for DDCs. A
Declaration of Conformity or an Opinion from a European Notified Body (NB) on conformity of thedevice part of the combination product needs to be included in the Marketing Authorisation
Application (MAA). For device/drug combinations, the requirements under the MDR are similar to the
MDD. However, slight changes to the wording (e.g. removal of the phrase ‘liability to act’) and changes
to definitions in associated guidance documents may mean more devices fall under Rule 14 of the
MDR compared to Rule 13 of the MDD. For devices containing substances, a new rule (Rule 21) has
been introduced. This rule emphasises the requirements for manufacturers to demonstrate that thesetypes of combination products are safe, in addition to all other conformity activities. This article will
look at each of these requirements in turn and discuss the implementation from the perspective of aEuropean NB.

DDCs and Article 117
Article 117 is only two paragraphs long1 but introduces significant new requirements on DDC
manufacturers applying for product licences in Europe. The requirement to demonstrate conformityof the device part of a DDC was, in fact, already there for pre-MDR DDCs as manufacturers were
expected to demonstrate conformity to the Essential Requirements of the MDD. This was via selfdeclaration or CE certification; alternatively, compliance was assessed by the Competent Authorities
as part of the assessment of the whole DDC. Article 117 of the MDR requires manufacturers todemonstrate that the device part of a DDC conforms to the General Safety and Performance
Requirements (GSPRs) of Annex I to the MDR by using a CE certified product, or by self-declaration for
applicable devices, or the provision of an NB Opinion (NBOp). This article focuses on the latter route.
DDCs are becoming more complex as technology progresses and the device parts can include
software, applications or other active components (i.e. dependant on an energy source). As devices
become more complex, the skill sets needed to evaluate their safety and performance grow, hence
the introduction of NBs into the process. NBs are independent organisations designated to conduct
conformity assessment on behalf of the European Union, in this case for medical devices before being
placed on the market4. The designation process covers many different device types, grouped into
different codes, and a list of NBs designated under the MDR, as well as the codes they have been
designated to, can be found on the NANDO website5. When choosing an NB, it is important a DDC
manufacturer checks the NB has the appropriate competencies for its device(s).
The introduction of Article 117 means part of the review that was previously covered by theCompetent Authority is now assessed by the NB. This has led to some concern within the22© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 2020

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations
pharmaceutical industry that there is the potential for duplication of review6. However, NBs arelooking at conformity of the device part to Annex I to the MDR whilst the Competent Authority retains
its role of assessing conformity of the medicinal product to Directive 2001/83/EC. To ensure theimplementation of Article 117 does not unduly increase the regulatory burden on manufacturers, thekey stakeholders, including regulators and industry groups, have been collaborating. In particular,
stakeholders have provided comments on the European Medicines Agency’s Quality Working
Party/Biologics Working Party guidance on quality requirements for DDCs7. Team-NB, the industry
body for NBs, has been working to ensure the output of the NBOp is not only suitable to confirm
conformity to the GSPRs but also detailed enough to (hopefully) prevent re-review by the Competent
Authorities.
Whilst this is a new process for pharmaceutical manufacturers, conformity assessment is nota new process for NBs, who will be aware of the standards and solutions that can be applied for the
relevant devices. It is up to the MAA manufacturer to provide evidence of conformity to the relevant
GSPRs during review. Which GSPRs are relevant is arguably subjective; however, the following guiding
principles should be considered:•

Data should be provided in Technical Documentation format. Annex II to the MDR describes theelements (contents) of the Technical Documentation for medical devices and is therefore a goodplace to start. Several NBs also provide guidance on technical documentation8.

•

Some GSPRs are more obviously relevant, or not, for example those pertaining to active devices.

•

GSPRs for sterility or stability, for example, will have a lot of overlap with the Competent Authority
review. It is important to remember that the NBOp is on the device part and the Competent
Authority review is on the medicinal product.

•

If the MAA holder judges a GSPR to be not relevant, justification should be provided rather thanjust entering ‘not applicable’.

•

The clinical data on the medicinal product is part of the Competent Authority review. The NBOp
review will, again, be limited to the device part (e.g. demonstrating the device can deliver the doseas claimed in the correct patient group). This can take the form of in vitro or human factor studies.
If specific clinical claims are made relevant to the device part, then additional clinical data may berequired.

•

The final DDC is licensed as a medicinal product; therefore, the labelling needs to conform to theMedicinal Product Directive rather than the MDR3,7. Where labelling or packaging solutions havebeen implemented as part of risk mitigation, these aspects may form part of the NB review.

© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 202023

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations
Experience with issuing an NBOp shows that DDC manufacturers can use a range of evidence todemonstrate conformity to the GSPRs. This can include data from literature, suppliers and subcontractors as well as in-house data. A well-structured file, following the format suggested in Annex II
to the MDR containing high level overviews as well as sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance will
help to facilitate the review.
For some simpler DDCs, the concept of platforms has been raised. In general, the term
‘platform’ is used in this context to describe a drug delivery device that can be used to deliver different
medicinal substances under separate marketing authorisations. Conceptually, if the device part is thesame, or very similar, the data supporting most of the GSPRs is the same and therefore should notneed to be reviewed each time. Of course, there are nuances with each application, and it is thesethat need to be covered by a platform approach or by the NB review. One of the outstanding questions
for stakeholders to agree on is an appropriate legal approach to this issue. Answers were expected
after the European Medicines Agency meeting at the end of March 2020, but this meeting has been
postponed due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Dialogue is therefore ongoing.
The requirements under Article 117 apply to new MAA applications submitted after
26 May 2021. They also apply to any variation applications after this date, if there are substantialchanges to the medical device component. This means legacy medicinal products, for which an NBOp
was previously not required, will need an NBOp as part of the variation process if this type of change
is being made. Changes to the device component are considered substantial if the changes affect theperformance or safety characteristics of the device3. This is a subjective assessment to be made by the
manufacturer and will be reviewed by the Competent Authority during the variation procedure. NBs,
as they are not able to act as consultants, will not be able to advise on whether a change requires an
NBOp or not. Where the change does require an NBOp, the NB will likely review the GSPRs affectedby the change. Again, clarification on this point was expected after the European Medicines Agency
meeting at the end of March 2020, which has now been postponed.

Device/drug combinations and Rule 14
The process under the MDR for devices containing ancillary medicinal substances is largely unchanged,
although the definition for ancillary substance (as covered by Rule 14) no longer contains the phrase‘liable to act’. The precise consequences of this change are still to be determined. Some industry
groups argue it has been removed as it is redundant; if a component has a medicinal ancillary action
it must therefore be liable to act. Other groups interpret the change as meaning any device containing
a pharmacological, metabolic or immunological acting agent will now fall into Class III, regardless of
the amount. MEDDEV 2.1/39, the borderline and ancillary medicinal products guideline, is currently

24© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 2020

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations
being updated, as is the classification guideline MEDDEV 2.4/110. It is expected that these updated
guidelines will clarify how Rule 14 is to be interpreted, as well as definitions of what constitutes
pharmacological, metabolic or immunological action.
If a classification is not clear from the guidelines on Rule 14 and if the manufacturer and NB
do not agree, there is a new classification dispute process in the MDR (Article 51(2)). It is important tonote this procedure cannot be performed out of context; it must be as part of the conformity
assessment activities of a device. This is to ensure NBs are not acting as classification consultants; theirrole is to assess the rules are being applied correctly. Under the new procedure, classification disputes
will be escalated to the Competent Authority of the manufacturer and the Competent Authority of
the NB for arbitration. Once agreement has been reached then the Competent Authority of the
manufacturer will notify the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and the European
Commission. In this way, it is expected there will be more consistency in classification for borderline cases.
The consultation procedure for ancillary medicinal substances has not changed between the
MDD and MDR. All Class III Rule 14 devices will be expected to have a medicinal dossier, in Common
Technical Documentation (CTD) format, on the ancillary medicinal substance. The NB then consults a
Competent Authority on the usefulness, risk and benefit of the medicine in the device. For legacy
products, which had a consultation under the MDD, this may involve a repeat consultation or a gap
analysis by the Competent Authority before positive advice is provided allowing certification under
the MDR.
One area where there may be a change with respect to the consultations is as a result of
Brexit. Manufacturers who have a consultation with the UK Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA) under the MDD will need to ‘transfer’ their consultations to a European
Competent Authority. At the time of writing, there is no European process for this as transfer ofconsultations was not envisaged under the MDD or MDR. Individual Competent Authorities aredeveloping processes, which may involve a review of MHRA reports and transfer or a re-consultation.
NBs will need to guide manufacturers through this process as the consultation is between theCompetent Authority and the NB.

Devices composed of substances and Rule 21
This is a new rule for the MDR and introduces new requirements on manufacturers of these devices
and on the NBs. The purpose of Rule 21 is to ensure the safety of a substance introduced into thehuman body is considered by analogy to the principles of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism andExcretion (ADME) outlined in Directive 2001/83/EC. Rule 21 (below) classifies devices with substances
according to risk:© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 202025

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations‘Devices that are composed of substances or of combinations of substances that are intended
to be introduced into the human body via a body orifice or applied to the skin and that areabsorbed by or locally dispersed in the human body are classified as:−class III if they, or their products of metabolism, are systemically absorbed by the humanbody in order to achieve the intended purpose;−

class III if they achieve their intended purpose in the stomach or lower gastrointestinal
tract and they, or their products of metabolism, are systemically absorbed by the human body;−class IIa if they are applied to the skin or if they are applied in the nasal or oral cavity as
far as the pharynx, and achieve their intended purpose on those cavities; and−class IIb in all other cases.’

For all Rule 21 devices, the technical documentation as described in Annex II to the MDR should
include detailed information on the test design, complete test or study protocols, methods of data
analysis, and data summaries and test conclusions. Studies should be conducted in relation to:
•

ADME;

•

possible interactions of those substances, or of their products of metabolism in the human body,with other devices, medicinal products or other substances, considering the target population,and its associated medical conditions;•

local tolerance;•

toxicity.

In addition to the requirements described above for Class III Rule 21 devices, if they or their productsof metabolism are systemically absorbed by the human body in order to achieve the intended
purpose, there is a new Competent Authority consultation procedure. As this is a new process, there
is little guidance from the Competent Authorities on how it will run but it is expected the data
described above will be provided to the Competent Authority for review. As stated in the MDR, theopinion of the Competent Authority consulted shall be drawn up within 150 days of receipt of all thenecessary documentation.

Conclusions
The MDR has brought in some new requirements for the various combination products described inthis article. For NBs, some of these requirements are brand new, requiring close collaboration withother regulators to ensure correct and consistent implementation. Other MDR requirements are
similar to those under the MDD. The European Commission is developing further guidance to ensure

26© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 2020

Focus – NB Perspective on Combinations
fair and consistent application of these requirements across different NBs and Competent Authorities.
Although there are challenges with a developing regulatory landscape, which is to be expected, NBs
are well placed to ensure patient safety through conformity assessment.
References
1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0745&from=EN
2. https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2001_83_consol_2012/dir_2001_83_cons_2012_en.pdf
3. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/questions-answers-implementationmedical-devices-vitro-diagnostic-medical-devices-regulations-eu/745-eu-2017/746_en.pdf
4. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-blocks/notified-bodies_en
5. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/nando/
6. https://www.efpia.eu/media/362137/ebe-efpia-reflection-paper-industry-perspective-on-art-117-of-mdr_final.pdf
7. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/quality-requirements-drug-device-combinations
8. https://www.bsigroup.com/globalassets/meddev/localfiles/en-gb/documents/bsi-md-mdr-best-practicedocumentation-submissions-en-gb.pdf
9. http://www.meddev.info/_documents/2_1_3_rev_3-12_2009_en.pdf
10. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/10337/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

Dr Jonathan Sutch is a Medicinal Technical Expert at BSI Group working with device/drug combinations. He has been with
BSI for two and a half years after over 16 years in the pharmaceutical industry. For any enquiries please contact BSI ateu.medicaldevices@bsigroup.com.

© Journal of Medical Device Regulation – May 202027