Article 52 Conformity assessment procedures
1. Prior to placing a device on the market, manufacturers shall undertake an assessment of the conformity of that device, in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures set out in Annexes IX to XI. 2. Prior to putting into service a device that is not placed on the market, manufacturers shall undertake an assessment of the conformity of that device, in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures set out in Annexes IX to XI. 3. Manufacturers of class III devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall be subject to a conformity assessment as specified in Annex IX. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to apply a conformity assessment as specified in Annex X coupled with a conformity assessment as specified in Annex XI. 4. Manufacturers of class IIb devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall be subject to a conformity assessment as specified in Chapters I and III of Annex IX, and including an assessment of the technical documentation as specified in Section 4 of that Annex of at least one representative device per generic device group. However, for class IIb implantable devices, except sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips and connectors, the assessment of the technical documentation as specified in Section 4 of Annex IX shall apply for every device. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to apply a conformity assessment based on type examination as specified in Annex X coupled with a conformity assessment based on product conformity verification as specified in Annex XI. 5. Where justified in view of well-established technologies, similar to those used in the exempted devices listed in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4 of this Article, being used in other class IIb implantable devices, or where justified in order to protect the health and safety of patients, users or other persons or other aspects of public health, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 to amend that list by adding other types of class IIb implantable devices to that list or removing devices therefrom. 6. Manufacturers of class IIa devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall be subject to a conformity assessment as specified in Chapters I and III of Annex IX, and including an assessment of the technical documentation as specified in Section 4 of that Annex of at least one representative device for each category of devices. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to draw up the technical documentation set out in Annexes II and III coupled with a conformity assessment as specified in Section 10 or Section 18 of Annex XI. The assessment of the technical documentation shall apply for at least one representative device for each category of devices. 7. Manufacturers of class I devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall declare the conformity of their products by issuing the EU declaration of conformity referred to in Article 19 after drawing up the technical documentation set out in Annexes II and III. If those devices are placed on the market in sterile condition, have a measuring function or are reusable surgical instruments, the manufacturer shall apply the procedures set out in Chapters I and III of Annex IX, or in Part A of Annex XI. However, the involvement of the notified body in those procedures shall be limited: (a) in the case of devices placed on the market in sterile condition, to the aspects relating to establishing, securing and maintaining sterile conditions; (b) in the case of devices with a measuring function, to the aspects relating to the conformity of the devices with the metrological requirements; (c) in the case of reusable surgical instruments, to the aspects relating to the reuse of the device, in particular cleaning, disinfection, sterilization, maintenance and functional testing and the related instructions for use. 8. Manufacturers of custom-made devices shall follow the procedure set out in Annex XIII and draw up the statement set out in Section 1 of that Annex before placing such devices on the market. In addition to the procedure applicable pursuant to the first subparagraph, manufacturers of class III custom-made implantable devices shall be subject to the conformity assessment as specified in Chapter I of Annex IX. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to apply a conformity assessment as specified in Part A of Annex XI. 9. In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to paragraph 3, 4, 6, or 7 of this Article, in the case of devices referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 1(8), the procedure specified in Section 5.2 of Annex IX or Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, shall also apply. 11. In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to paragraph 3, 4, 6, or 7, in the case of 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 are absorbed by or locally dispersed in the human body, the procedure specified in Section 5.4 of Annex IX or Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, shall also apply. 12. The Member State in which the notified body is established may require that all or certain documents, including the technical documentation, audit, assessment and inspection reports, relating to the procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 be made available in an official Union language(s) determined by that Member State. In the absence of such requirement, those documents shall be available in any official Union language acceptable to the notified body. 13. Investigational devices shall be subject to the requirements set out in Articles 62 to 81. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, specify detailed arrangements and procedural aspects with a view to ensuring the harmonised application of the conformity assessment procedures by the notified bodies for any of the following aspects: (a) the frequency and the sampling basis of the assessment of the technical documentation on a representative basis as set out in the third paragraph of Section 2.3 and in Section 3.5 of Annex IX in the case of class IIa and class IIb devices, and in Section 10.2 of Annex XI in the case of class IIa devices; (b) the minimum frequency of unannounced on-site audits and sample tests to be conducted by notified bodies in accordance with Section 3.4 of Annex IX, taking into account the risk-class and the type of device; (c) the physical, laboratory or other tests to be carried out by notified bodies in the context of sample tests, assessment of the technical documentation and type examination in accordance with Sections 3.4 and 4.3 of Annex IX, Section 3 of Annex X and Section 15 of Annex XI. The implementing acts referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 114(3).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 52 Conformity assessment procedures):
1. Prior to placing a device on the market, manufacturers shall undertake an assessment of the conformity of that device, in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures set out in Annexes IX to XI. 2. Prior to putting into service a device that is not placed on the market, manufacturers shall undertake an assessment of the conformity of that device, in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures set out in Annexes IX to XI. 3. Manufacturers of class III devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall be subject to a conformity assessment as specified in Annex IX. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to apply a conformity assessment as specified in Annex X coupled with a conformity assessment as specified in Annex XI. 4. Manufacturers of class IIb devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall be subject to a conformity assessment as specified in Chapters I and III of Annex IX, and including an assessment of the technical documentation as specified in Section 4 of that Annex of at least one representative device per generic device group. However, for class IIb implantable devices, except sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips and connectors, the assessment of the technical documentation as specified in Section 4 of Annex IX shall apply for every device. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to apply a conformity assessment based on type examination as specified in Annex X coupled with a conformity assessment based on product conformity verification as specified in Annex XI. 5. Where justified in view of well-established technologies, similar to those used in the exempted devices listed in the second subparagraph of paragraph 4 of this Article, being used in other class IIb implantable devices, or where justified in order to protect the health and safety of patients, users or other persons or other aspects of public health, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 to amend that list by adding other types of class IIb implantable devices to that list or removing devices therefrom. 6. Manufacturers of class IIa devices, other than custom-made or investigational devices, shall be subject to a conformity assessment as specified in Chapters I and III of Annex IX, and including an assessment of the technical documentation as specified in Section 4 of that Annex of at least one representative device for each category of devices. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to draw up the technical documentation set out in Annexes II and III coupled with a conformity assessment as specified in Section 10 or Section 18 of Annex XI. The assessment of the technical documentation shall apply for at least one representative device for each category of devices. 8. Manufacturers of custom-made devices shall follow the procedure set out in Annex XIII and draw up the statement set out in Section 1 of that Annex before placing such devices on the market. In addition to the procedure applicable pursuant to the first subparagraph, manufacturers of class III custom-made implantable devices shall be subject to the conformity assessment as specified in Chapter I of Annex IX. Alternatively, the manufacturer may choose to apply a conformity assessment as specified in Part A of Annex XI. 9. In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to paragraph 3, 4, 6, or 7 of this Article, in the case of devices referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 1(8), the procedure specified in Section 5.2 of Annex IX or Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, shall also apply. 11. In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to paragraph 3, 4, 6, or 7, in the case of 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 are absorbed by or locally dispersed in the human body, the procedure specified in Section 5.4 of Annex IX or Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, shall also apply. 12. The Member State in which the notified body is established may require that all or certain documents, including the technical documentation, audit, assessment and inspection reports, relating to the procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 be made available in an official Union language(s) determined by that Member State. In the absence of such requirement, those documents shall be available in any official Union language acceptable to the notified body. 13. Investigational devices shall be subject to the requirements set out in Articles 62 to 81. The implementing acts referred to in the first subparagraph shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 114(3).
Article 53 Involvement of notified bodies in conformity assessment procedures
1. Where the conformity assessment procedure requires the involvement of a notified body, the manufacturer may apply to a notified body of its choice, provided that the chosen notified body is designated for conformity assessment activities related to the types of devices concerned. The manufacturer may not lodge an application in parallel with another notified body for the same conformity assessment procedure. 2. The notified body concerned shall, by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 57, inform the other notified bodies of any manufacturer that withdraws its application prior to the notified body's decision regarding the conformity assessment. 3. When applying to a notified body under paragraph 1, manufacturers shall declare whether they have withdrawn an application with another notified body prior to the decision of that notified body and provide information about any previous application for the same conformity assessment that has been refused by another notified body. 4. The notified body may require any information or data from the manufacturer, which is necessary in order to properly conduct the chosen conformity assessment procedure. 5. Notified bodies and the personnel of notified bodies shall carry out their conformity assessment activities with the highest degree of professional integrity and the requisite technical and scientific competence in the specific field and shall be free from all pressures and inducements, particularly financial, which might influence their judgement or the results of their conformity assessment activities, especially as regards persons or groups with an interest in the results of those activities.
Article 54 Clinical evaluation consultation procedure for certain class III and class IIb devices
1. In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to Article 52, a notified body shall also follow the procedure regarding clinical evaluation consultation as specified in Section 5.1 of Annex IX or as referred to in Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, when performing a conformity assessment of the following devices: (a) class III implantable devices, and (b) class IIb active devices intended to administer and/or remove a medicinal product, as referred to in Section 6.4 of Annex VIII (Rule 12). In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to Article 52, a notified body shall also follow the procedure regarding clinical evaluation consultation as specified in Section 5.1 of Annex IX or as referred to in Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, when performing a conformity assessment of the following devices: (a) class III implantable devices, and (b) class IIb active devices intended to administer and/or remove a medicinal product, as referred to in Section 6.4 of Annex VIII (Rule 12). The procedure referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be required for the devices referred to therein: (a) in the case of renewal of a certificate issued under this Regulation; (b) where the device has been designed by modifying a device already marketed by the same manufacturer for the same intended purpose, provided that the manufacturer has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the notified body that the modifications do not adversely affect the benefit-risk ratio of the device; or (c) where the principles of the clinical evaluation of the device type or category have been addressed in a CS referred to in Article 9 and the notified body confirms that the clinical evaluation of the manufacturer for this device is in compliance with the relevant CS for clinical evaluation of that kind of device. 3. The notified body shall notify the competent authorities, the authority responsible for notified bodies and the Commission through the electronic system referred to in Article 57 of whether or not the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is to be applied. That notification shall be accompanied by the clinical evaluation assessment report. 4. The Commission shall draw up an annual overview of devices which have been subject to the procedure specified in Section 5.1 of Annex IX and referred to in Section 6 of Annex X. The annual overview shall include the notifications in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article and point (e) of Section 5.1 of Annex IX and a listing of the cases where the notified body did not follow the advice from the expert panel. The Commission shall submit this overview to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the MDCG. 5. The Commission shall by 27 May 2025 draw up a report on the operation of this Article and submit it to the European Parliament and to the Council. The report shall take into account the annual overviews and any available relevant recommendations from the MDCG. On the basis of that report the Commission shall, if appropriate, make proposals for amendments to this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 54 Clinical evaluation consultation procedure for certain class III and class IIb devices):
1. In addition to the procedures applicable pursuant to Article 52, a notified body shall also follow the procedure regarding clinical evaluation consultation as specified in Section 5.1 of Annex IX or as referred to in Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable, when performing a conformity assessment of the following devices: (a) class III implantable devices, and (b) class IIb active devices intended to administer and/or remove a medicinal product, as referred to in Section 6.4 of Annex VIII (Rule 12). 3. The notified body shall notify the competent authorities, the authority responsible for notified bodies and the Commission through the electronic system referred to in Article 57 of whether or not the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is to be applied. That notification shall be accompanied by the clinical evaluation assessment report. 4. The Commission shall draw up an annual overview of devices which have been subject to the procedure specified in Section 5.1 of Annex IX and referred to in Section 6 of Annex X. The annual overview shall include the notifications in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article and point (e) of Section 5.1 of Annex IX and a listing of the cases where the notified body did not follow the advice from the expert panel. The Commission shall submit this overview to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the MDCG. 5. The Commission shall by 27 May 2025 draw up a report on the operation of this Article and submit it to the European Parliament and to the Council. The report shall take into account the annual overviews and any available relevant recommendations from the MDCG. On the basis of that report the Commission shall, if appropriate, make proposals for amendments to this Regulation.
Article 55 Mechanism for scrutiny of conformity assessments of certain class III and class IIb devices
1. A notified body shall notify the competent authorities of certificates it has granted to devices for which the conformity assessment has been performed pursuant to Article 54(1). Such notification shall take place through the electronic system referred to in Article 57 and shall include the summary of safety and clinical performance pursuant to Article 32, the assessment report by the notified body, the instructions for use referred to in Section 23.4 of Annex I, and, where applicable, the scientific opinion of the expert panels referred to in Section 5.1 of Annex IX or Section 6 of Annex X, as applicable. In the case of divergent views between the notified body and the expert panels, a full justification shall also be included. 2. A competent authority and, where applicable, the Commission may, based on reasonable concerns apply further procedures in accordance with Article 44, 45, 46, 47 or 94 and, where deemed necessary, take appropriate measures in accordance with Articles 95 and 97. 3. The MDCG and, where applicable, the Commission, may, based on reasonable concerns, request scientific advice from the expert panels in relation to the safety and performance of any device.
Article 56 Certificates of conformity
1. The certificates issued by the notified bodies in accordance with Annexes IX, X and XI shall be in an official Union language determined by the Member State in which the notified body is established or otherwise in an official Union language acceptable to the notified body. The minimum content of the certificates shall be as set out in Annex XII. 2. The certificates shall be valid for the period they indicate, which shall not exceed five years. On application by the manufacturer, the validity of the certificate may be extended for further periods, each not exceeding five years, based on a re-assessment in accordance with the applicable conformity assessment procedures. Any supplement to a certificate shall remain valid as long as the certificate which it supplements is valid. 3. Notified bodies may impose restrictions to the intended purpose of a device to certain groups of patients or require manufacturers to undertake specific PMCF studies pursuant to Part B of Annex XIV. 4. Where a notified body finds that the requirements of this Regulation are no longer met by the manufacturer, it shall, taking account of the principle of proportionality, suspend or withdraw the certificate issued or impose any restrictions on it unless compliance with such requirements is ensured by appropriate corrective action taken by the manufacturer within an appropriate deadline set by the notified body. The notified body shall give the reasons for its decision. 5. The notified body shall enter in the electronic system referred to in Article 57 any information regarding certificates issued, including amendments and supplements thereto, and regarding suspended, reinstated, withdrawn or refused certificates and restrictions imposed on certificates. Such information shall be accessible to the public. 6. In the light of technical progress, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 amending the minimum content of the certificates set out in Annex XII.
Article 57 Electronic system on notified bodies and on certificates of conformity
The Commission, after consulting the MDCG, shall set up and manage an electronic system to collate and process the following information: (a) the list of subsidiaries referred to in Article 37(3); (b) the list of experts referred to in Article 40(2); the information relating to the notification referred to in Article 42(10) and the amended notifications referred to in Article 46(2); (d) the list of notified bodies referred to in Article 43(2); (e) the summary of the report referred to in Article 44(12); the notifications for conformity assessments and certificates referred to in Articles 54(3) and 55(1); (g) withdrawal or refusals of applications for the certificates as referred to in Article 53(2) and Section 4.3 of Annex VII; (h) the information regarding certificates referred to in Article 56(5); (i) the summary of safety and clinical performance referred to in Article 32. 2. The information collated and processed by the electronic system shall be accessible to the competent authorities of the Member States, to the Commission, where appropriate to the notified bodies and where provided elsewhere in this regulation or in Regulation (EU) 2017/746 to the public.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 57 Electronic system on notified bodies and on certificates of conformity):
2. The information collated and processed by the electronic system shall be accessible to the competent authorities of the Member States, to the Commission, where appropriate to the notified bodies and where provided elsewhere in this regulation or in Regulation (EU) 2017/746 to the public.
Article 58 Voluntary change of notified body
In cases where a manufacturer terminates its contract with a notified body and enters into a contract with another notified body in respect of the conformity assessment of the same device, the detailed arrangements for the change of notified body shall be clearly defined in an agreement between the manufacturer, the incoming notified body and, where practicable the outgoing notified body. That agreement shall cover at least the following aspects: (a) the date on which the certificates issued by the outgoing notified body become invalid; (b) the date until which the identification number of the outgoing notified body may be indicated in the information supplied by the manufacturer, including any promotional material; (c) the transfer of documents, including confidentiality aspects and property rights; (d) the date after which the conformity assessment tasks of the outgoing notified body is assigned to the incoming notified body; (e) the last serial number or lot number for which the outgoing notified body is responsible. 2. The outgoing notified body shall withdraw the certificates it has issued for the device concerned on the date on which they become invalid.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 58 Voluntary change of notified body):
2. The outgoing notified body shall withdraw the certificates it has issued for the device concerned on the date on which they become invalid.
Article 59 Derogation from the conformity assessment procedures
1. By way of derogation from Article 52 of this Regulation or, for the period from 24 April 2020 to 25 May 2021, by way of derogation from Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 90/385/EEC or from Article 11(1) to (6) of Directive 93/42/EEC, any competent authority may authorise, on a duly justified request, the placing on the market or putting into service within the territory of the Member State concerned, of a specific device for which the applicable procedures referred to in those Articles have not been carried out but use of which is in the interest of public health or patient safety or health. 2. The Member State shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of any decision to authorise the placing on the market or putting into service of a device in accordance with paragraph 1 where such authorisation is granted for use other than for a single patient. The Member State may inform the Commission and the other Member States of any authorisation granted in accordance with Article 9(9) of Directive 90/385/EEC or Article 11(13) of Directive 93/42/EEC before 24 April 2020. 3. Following a notification pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the Commission, in exceptional cases relating to public health or patient safety or health, may, by means of implementing acts, extend for a limited period of time the validity of an authorisation granted by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article or, when granted before 24 April 2020, in accordance with Article 9(9) of Directive 90/385/EEC or Article 11(13) of Directive 93/42/EEC to the territory of the Union and set the conditions under which the device may be placed on the market or put into service. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 114(3). On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency relating to the health and safety of humans, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 114(4).
Article 60 Certificate of free sale
1. For the purpose of export and upon request by a manufacturer or an authorised representative, the Member State in which the manufacturer or the authorised representative has its registered place of business shall issue a certificate of free sale declaring that the manufacturer or the authorised representative, as applicable, has its registered place of business on its territory and that the device in question bearing the CE marking in accordance with this Regulation may be marketed in the Union. The certificate of free sale shall set out the Basic UDI-DI of the device as provided to the UDI database under Article 29. Where a notified body has issued a certificate pursuant to Article 56, the certificate of free sale shall set out the unique number identifying the certificate issued by the notified body, as referred to in Section 3 of Chapter II of Annex XII. 2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish a model for certificates of free sale, taking into account international practice as regards the use of certificates of free sale. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 114(2).
Article 61 Clinical evaluation
1. Confirmation of conformity with relevant general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I under the normal conditions of the intended use of the device, and the evaluation of the undesirable side-effects and of the acceptability of the benefit-risk- ratio referred to in Sections 1 and 8 of Annex I, shall be based on clinical data providing sufficient clinical evidence, including where applicable relevant data as referred to in Annex III. The manufacturer shall specify and justify the level of clinical evidence necessary to demonstrate conformity with the relevant general safety and performance requirements. That level of clinical evidence shall be appropriate in view of the characteristics of the device and its intended purpose. To that end, manufacturers shall plan, conduct and document a clinical evaluation in accordance with this Article and Part A of Annex XIV. 2. For all class III devices and for the class IIb devices referred to in point (b) of Article 54(1), the manufacturer may, prior to its clinical evaluation and/or investigation, consult an expert panel as referred to in Article 106, with the aim of reviewing the manufacturer's intended clinical development strategy and proposals for clinical investigation. The manufacturer shall give due consideration to the views expressed by the expert panel. Such consideration shall be documented in the clinical evaluation report referred to in paragraph 12 of this Article. The manufacturer may not invoke any rights to the views expressed by the expert panel with regard to any future conformity assessment procedure. A clinical evaluation shall follow a defined and methodologically sound procedure based on the following: (a) a critical evaluation of the relevant scientific literature currently available relating to the safety, performance, design characteristics and intended purpose of the device, where the following conditions are satisfied: — it is demonstrated that the device subject to clinical evaluation for the intended purpose is equivalent to the device to which the data relate, in accordance with Section 3 of Annex XIV, and — the data adequately demonstrate compliance with the relevant general safety and performance requirements; a critical evaluation of the relevant scientific literature currently available relating to the safety, performance, design characteristics and intended purpose of the device, where the following conditions are satisfied: — it is demonstrated that the device subject to clinical evaluation for the intended purpose is equivalent to the device to which the data relate, in accordance with Section 3 of Annex XIV, and — the data adequately demonstrate compliance with the relevant general safety and performance requirements; (b) a critical evaluation of the results of all available clinical investigations, taking duly into consideration whether the investigations were performed under Articles 62 to 80, any acts adopted pursuant to Article 81, and Annex XV; and (c) a consideration of currently available alternative treatment options for that purpose, if any. 4. In the case of implantable devices and class III devices, clinical investigations shall be performed, except if: — the device has been designed by modifications of a device already marketed by the same manufacturer, — the modified device has been demonstrated by the manufacturer to be equivalent to the marketed device, in accordance with Section 3 of Annex XIV and this demonstration has been endorsed by the notified body, and — the clinical evaluation of the marketed device is sufficient to demonstrate conformity of the modified device with the relevant safety and performance requirements. In the case of implantable devices and class III devices, clinical investigations shall be performed, except if: — the device has been designed by modifications of a device already marketed by the same manufacturer, — the modified device has been demonstrated by the manufacturer to be equivalent to the marketed device, in accordance with Section 3 of Annex XIV and this demonstration has been endorsed by the notified body, and — the clinical evaluation of the marketed device is sufficient to demonstrate conformity of the modified device with the relevant safety and performance requirements. In this case, the notified body shall check that the PMCF plan is appropriate and includes post market studies to demonstrate the safety and performance of the device. In addition, clinical investigations need not be performed in the cases referred to in paragraph 6. 5. A manufacturer of a device demonstrated to be equivalent to an already marketed device not manufactured by him, may also rely on paragraph 4 in order not to perform a clinical investigation provided that the following conditions are fulfilled in addition to what is required in that paragraph: — the two manufacturers have a contract in place that explicitly allows the manufacturer of the second device full access to the technical documentation on an ongoing basis, and — the original clinical evaluation has been performed in compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, and the manufacturer of the second device provides clear evidence thereof to the notified body. A manufacturer of a device demonstrated to be equivalent to an already marketed device not manufactured by him, may also rely on paragraph 4 in order not to perform a clinical investigation provided that the following conditions are fulfilled in addition to what is required in that paragraph: — the two manufacturers have a contract in place that explicitly allows the manufacturer of the second device full access to the technical documentation on an ongoing basis, and — the original clinical evaluation has been performed in compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, and the manufacturer of the second device provides clear evidence thereof to the notified body. 6. The requirement to perform clinical investigations pursuant to paragraph 4 shall not apply to implantable devices and class III devices: (a) which have been lawfully placed on the market or put into service in accordance with Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC and for which the clinical evaluation: — is based on sufficient clinical data, and — is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS for the clinical evaluation of that kind of device, where such a CS is available; or (b) that are sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips or connectors for which the clinical evaluation is based on sufficient clinical data and is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS, where such a CS is available. The requirement to perform clinical investigations pursuant to paragraph 4 shall not apply to implantable devices and class III devices: (a) which have been lawfully placed on the market or put into service in accordance with Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC and for which the clinical evaluation: — is based on sufficient clinical data, and — is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS for the clinical evaluation of that kind of device, where such a CS is available; or which have been lawfully placed on the market or put into service in accordance with Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC and for which the clinical evaluation: — is based on sufficient clinical data, and — is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS for the clinical evaluation of that kind of device, where such a CS is available; or (b) that are sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips or connectors for which the clinical evaluation is based on sufficient clinical data and is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS, where such a CS is available. 7. Cases in which paragraph 4 is not applied by virtue of paragraph 6 shall be justified in the clinical evaluation report by the manufacturer and in the clinical evaluation assessment report by the notified body. 8. Where justified in view of well-established technologies, similar to those used in the exempted devices listed in point (b) of paragraph 6 of this Article, being used in other devices, or where justified in order to protect the health and safety of patients, users or other persons or other aspects of public health, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 to amend the list of exempted devices referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 52(4) and in point (b) of paragraph 6 of this Article, by adding other types of implantable or class III devices to that list or removing devices therefrom. 9. In the case of the products without an intended medical purpose listed in Annex XVI, the requirement to demonstrate a clinical benefit in accordance with this Chapter and Annexes XIV and XV shall be understood as a requirement to demonstrate the performance of the device. Clinical evaluations of those products shall be based on relevant data concerning safety, including data from post-market surveillance, PMCF, and, where applicable, specific clinical investigation. Clinical investigations shall be performed for those products unless reliance on existing clinical data from an analogous medical device is duly justified. 10. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, where the demonstration of conformity with general safety and performance requirements based on clinical data is not deemed appropriate, adequate justification for any such exception shall be given based on the results of the manufacturer's risk management and on consideration of the specifics of the interaction between the device and the human body, the clinical performance intended and the claims of the manufacturer. In such a case, the manufacturer shall duly substantiate in the technical documentation referred to in Annex II why it considers a demonstration of conformity with general safety and performance requirements that is based on the results of non-clinical testing methods alone, including performance evaluation, bench testing and pre-clinical evaluation, to be adequate. 11. The clinical evaluation and its documentation shall be updated throughout the life cycle of the device concerned with clinical data obtained from the implementation of the manufacturer's PMCF plan in accordance with Part B of Annex XIV and the post-market surveillance plan referred to in Article 84. For class III devices and implantable devices, the PMCF evaluation report and, if indicated, the summary of safety and clinical performance referred to in Article 32 shall be updated at least annually with such data. 12. The clinical evaluation, its results and the clinical evidence derived from it shall be documented in a clinical evaluation report as referred to in Section 4 of Annex XIV, which, except for custom-made devices, shall be part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex II relating to the device concerned. 13. Where necessary to ensure the uniform application of Annex XIV, the Commission may, having due regard to technical and scientific progress, adopt implementing acts to the extent necessary to resolve issues of divergent interpretation and of practical application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 114(3).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 61 Clinical evaluation):
1. Confirmation of conformity with relevant general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I under the normal conditions of the intended use of the device, and the evaluation of the undesirable side-effects and of the acceptability of the benefit-risk- ratio referred to in Sections 1 and 8 of Annex I, shall be based on clinical data providing sufficient clinical evidence, including where applicable relevant data as referred to in Annex III. The manufacturer shall specify and justify the level of clinical evidence necessary to demonstrate conformity with the relevant general safety and performance requirements. That level of clinical evidence shall be appropriate in view of the characteristics of the device and its intended purpose. To that end, manufacturers shall plan, conduct and document a clinical evaluation in accordance with this Article and Part A of Annex XIV. 2. For all class III devices and for the class IIb devices referred to in point (b) of Article 54(1), the manufacturer may, prior to its clinical evaluation and/or investigation, consult an expert panel as referred to in Article 106, with the aim of reviewing the manufacturer's intended clinical development strategy and proposals for clinical investigation. The manufacturer shall give due consideration to the views expressed by the expert panel. Such consideration shall be documented in the clinical evaluation report referred to in paragraph 12 of this Article. The manufacturer may not invoke any rights to the views expressed by the expert panel with regard to any future conformity assessment procedure. 4. In the case of implantable devices and class III devices, clinical investigations shall be performed, except if: — the device has been designed by modifications of a device already marketed by the same manufacturer, — the modified device has been demonstrated by the manufacturer to be equivalent to the marketed device, in accordance with Section 3 of Annex XIV and this demonstration has been endorsed by the notified body, and — the clinical evaluation of the marketed device is sufficient to demonstrate conformity of the modified device with the relevant safety and performance requirements. In this case, the notified body shall check that the PMCF plan is appropriate and includes post market studies to demonstrate the safety and performance of the device. In addition, clinical investigations need not be performed in the cases referred to in paragraph 6. 5. A manufacturer of a device demonstrated to be equivalent to an already marketed device not manufactured by him, may also rely on paragraph 4 in order not to perform a clinical investigation provided that the following conditions are fulfilled in addition to what is required in that paragraph: — the two manufacturers have a contract in place that explicitly allows the manufacturer of the second device full access to the technical documentation on an ongoing basis, and — the original clinical evaluation has been performed in compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, and the manufacturer of the second device provides clear evidence thereof to the notified body. 6. The requirement to perform clinical investigations pursuant to paragraph 4 shall not apply to implantable devices and class III devices: (a) which have been lawfully placed on the market or put into service in accordance with Directive 90/385/EEC or Directive 93/42/EEC and for which the clinical evaluation: — is based on sufficient clinical data, and — is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS for the clinical evaluation of that kind of device, where such a CS is available; or (b) that are sutures, staples, dental fillings, dental braces, tooth crowns, screws, wedges, plates, wires, pins, clips or connectors for which the clinical evaluation is based on sufficient clinical data and is in compliance with the relevant product-specific CS, where such a CS is available. 7. Cases in which paragraph 4 is not applied by virtue of paragraph 6 shall be justified in the clinical evaluation report by the manufacturer and in the clinical evaluation assessment report by the notified body. 8. Where justified in view of well-established technologies, similar to those used in the exempted devices listed in point (b) of paragraph 6 of this Article, being used in other devices, or where justified in order to protect the health and safety of patients, users or other persons or other aspects of public health, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 115 to amend the list of exempted devices referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 52(4) and in point (b) of paragraph 6 of this Article, by adding other types of implantable or class III devices to that list or removing devices therefrom. 9. In the case of the products without an intended medical purpose listed in Annex XVI, the requirement to demonstrate a clinical benefit in accordance with this Chapter and Annexes XIV and XV shall be understood as a requirement to demonstrate the performance of the device. Clinical evaluations of those products shall be based on relevant data concerning safety, including data from post-market surveillance, PMCF, and, where applicable, specific clinical investigation. Clinical investigations shall be performed for those products unless reliance on existing clinical data from an analogous medical device is duly justified. 10. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, where the demonstration of conformity with general safety and performance requirements based on clinical data is not deemed appropriate, adequate justification for any such exception shall be given based on the results of the manufacturer's risk management and on consideration of the specifics of the interaction between the device and the human body, the clinical performance intended and the claims of the manufacturer. In such a case, the manufacturer shall duly substantiate in the technical documentation referred to in Annex II why it considers a demonstration of conformity with general safety and performance requirements that is based on the results of non-clinical testing methods alone, including performance evaluation, bench testing and pre-clinical evaluation, to be adequate. 11. The clinical evaluation and its documentation shall be updated throughout the life cycle of the device concerned with clinical data obtained from the implementation of the manufacturer's PMCF plan in accordance with Part B of Annex XIV and the post-market surveillance plan referred to in Article 84. For class III devices and implantable devices, the PMCF evaluation report and, if indicated, the summary of safety and clinical performance referred to in Article 32 shall be updated at least annually with such data. 12. The clinical evaluation, its results and the clinical evidence derived from it shall be documented in a clinical evaluation report as referred to in Section 4 of Annex XIV, which, except for custom-made devices, shall be part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex II relating to the device concerned. 13. Where necessary to ensure the uniform application of Annex XIV, the Commission may, having due regard to technical and scientific progress, adopt implementing acts to the extent necessary to resolve issues of divergent interpretation and of practical application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 114(3).
Article 62 General requirements regarding clinical investigations conducted to demonstrate conformity of devices
1. Clinical investigations shall be designed, authorised, conducted, recorded and reported in accordance with the provisions of this Article and of Articles 63 to 80, the acts adopted pursuant to Article 81, and Annex XV, where carried out as part of the clinical evaluation for conformity assessment purposes, for one or more of the following purposes: (a) to establish and verify that, under normal conditions of use, a device is designed, manufactured and packaged in such a way that it is suitable for one or more of the specific purposes listed in point (1) of Article 2, and achieves the performance intended as specified by its manufacturer; (b) to establish and verify the clinical benefits of a device as specified by its manufacturer; (c) to establish and verify the clinical safety of the device and to determine any undesirable side-effects, under normal conditions of use of the device, and assess whether they constitute acceptable risks when weighed against the benefits to be achieved by the device. 2. Where the sponsor of a clinical investigation is not established in the Union, that sponsor shall ensure that a natural or legal person is established in the Union as its legal representative. Such legal representative shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the sponsor's obligations pursuant to this Regulation, and shall be the addressee for all communications with the sponsor provided for in this Regulation. Any communication with that legal representative shall be deemed to be a communication with the sponsor. Member States may choose not to apply the first subparagraph to clinical investigations to be conducted solely on their territory, or on their territory and the territory of a third country, provided that they ensure that the sponsor establishes at least a contact person on their territory in respect of that clinical investigation who shall be the addressee for all communications with the sponsor provided for in this Regulation. 3. Clinical investigations shall be designed and conducted in such a way that the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of the subjects participating in a clinical investigation are protected and prevail over all other interests and the clinical data generated are scientifically valid, reliable and robust. Clinical investigations shall be subject to scientific and ethical review. The ethical review shall be performed by an ethics committee in accordance with national law. Member States shall ensure that the procedures for review by ethics committees are compatible with the procedures set out in this Regulation for the assessment of the application for authorisation of a clinical investigation. At least one lay person shall participate in the ethical review. A clinical investigation as referred to in paragraph 1 may be conducted only where all of the following conditions are met: (a) the clinical investigation is the subject of an authorisation by the Member State(s) in which the clinical investigation is to be conducted, in accordance with this Regulation, unless otherwise stated; (b) an ethics committee, set up in accordance with national law, has not issued a negative opinion in relation to the clinical investigation, which is valid for that entire Member State under its national law; (c) the sponsor, or its legal representative or a contact person pursuant to paragraph 2, is established in the Union; (d) vulnerable populations and subjects are appropriately protected in accordance with Articles 64 to 68; (e) the anticipated benefits to the subjects or to public health justify the foreseeable risks and inconveniences and compliance with this condition is constantly monitored; (f) the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative has given informed consent in accordance with Article 63; (g) the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative, has been provided with the contact details of an entity where further information can be received in case of need; (h) the rights of the subject to physical and mental integrity, to privacy and to the protection of the data concerning him or her in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC are safeguarded; (i) the clinical investigation has been designed to involve as little pain, discomfort, fear and any other foreseeable risk as possible for the subjects, and both the risk threshold and the degree of distress are specifically defined in the clinical investigation plan and constantly monitored; (j) the medical care provided to the subjects is the responsibility of an appropriately qualified medical doctor or, where appropriate, a qualified dental practitioner or any other person entitled by national law to provide the relevant patient care under clinical investigation conditions; (k) no undue influence, including that of a financial nature, is exerted on the subject, or, where applicable, on his or her legally designated representatives, to participate in the clinical investigation; the investigational device(s) in question conform(s) to the applicable general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I apart from the aspects covered by the clinical investigation and that, with regard to those aspects, every precaution has been taken to protect the health and safety of the subjects. This includes, where appropriate, technical and biological safety testing and pre-clinical evaluation, as well as provisions in the field of occupational safety and accident prevention, taking into consideration the state of the art; (m) the requirements of Annex XV are fulfilled. 5. Any subject, or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative, may, without any resulting detriment and without having to provide any justification, withdraw from the clinical investigation at any time by revoking his or her informed consent. Without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC, the withdrawal of the informed consent shall not affect the activities already carried out and the use of data obtained based on informed consent before its withdrawal. 6. The investigator shall be a person exercising a profession which is recognised in the Member State concerned as qualifying for the role of investigator on account of having the necessary scientific knowledge and experience in patient care. Other personnel involved in conducting a clinical investigation shall be suitably qualified, by education, training or experience in the relevant medical field and in clinical research methodology, to perform their tasks. 7. The facilities where the clinical investigation is to be conducted shall be suitable for the clinical investigation and shall be similar to the facilities where the device is intended to be used.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 62 General requirements regarding clinical investigations conducted to demonstrate conformity of devices):
2. Where the sponsor of a clinical investigation is not established in the Union, that sponsor shall ensure that a natural or legal person is established in the Union as its legal representative. Such legal representative shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the sponsor's obligations pursuant to this Regulation, and shall be the addressee for all communications with the sponsor provided for in this Regulation. Any communication with that legal representative shall be deemed to be a communication with the sponsor. Member States may choose not to apply the first subparagraph to clinical investigations to be conducted solely on their territory, or on their territory and the territory of a third country, provided that they ensure that the sponsor establishes at least a contact person on their territory in respect of that clinical investigation who shall be the addressee for all communications with the sponsor provided for in this Regulation. 3. Clinical investigations shall be designed and conducted in such a way that the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of the subjects participating in a clinical investigation are protected and prevail over all other interests and the clinical data generated are scientifically valid, reliable and robust. Clinical investigations shall be subject to scientific and ethical review. The ethical review shall be performed by an ethics committee in accordance with national law. Member States shall ensure that the procedures for review by ethics committees are compatible with the procedures set out in this Regulation for the assessment of the application for authorisation of a clinical investigation. At least one lay person shall participate in the ethical review. 5. Any subject, or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative, may, without any resulting detriment and without having to provide any justification, withdraw from the clinical investigation at any time by revoking his or her informed consent. Without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC, the withdrawal of the informed consent shall not affect the activities already carried out and the use of data obtained based on informed consent before its withdrawal. 6. The investigator shall be a person exercising a profession which is recognised in the Member State concerned as qualifying for the role of investigator on account of having the necessary scientific knowledge and experience in patient care. Other personnel involved in conducting a clinical investigation shall be suitably qualified, by education, training or experience in the relevant medical field and in clinical research methodology, to perform their tasks. 7. The facilities where the clinical investigation is to be conducted shall be suitable for the clinical investigation and shall be similar to the facilities where the device is intended to be used.
Article 63 Informed consent
1. Informed consent shall be written, dated and signed by the person performing the interview referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, and by the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative after having been duly informed in accordance with paragraph 2. Where the subject is unable to write, consent may be given and recorded through appropriate alternative means in the presence of at least one impartial witness. In that case, the witness shall sign and date the informed consent document. The subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative shall be provided with a copy of the document or the record, as appropriate, by which informed consent has been given. The informed consent shall be documented. Adequate time shall be given for the subject or his or her legally designated representative to consider his or her decision to participate in the clinical investigation. 2. Information given to the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative for the purposes of obtaining his or her informed consent shall: enable the subject or his or her legally designated representative to understand: (i) the nature, objectives, benefits, implications, risks and inconveniences of the clinical investigations; (ii) the subject's rights and guarantees regarding his or her protection, in particular his or her right to refuse to participate in and the right to withdraw from the clinical investigation at any time without any resulting detriment and without having to provide any justification; (iii) the conditions under which the clinical investigations is to be conducted, including the expected duration of the subject's participation in the clinical investigation; and (iv) the possible treatment alternatives, including the follow-up measures if the participation of the subject in the clinical investigation is discontinued; (b) be kept comprehensive, concise, clear, relevant, and understandable to the subject or his or her legally designated representative; (c) be provided in a prior interview with a member of the investigating team who is appropriately qualified under national law; (d) include information about the applicable damage compensation system referred to in Article 69; and (e) include the Union-wide unique single identification number of the clinical investigation referred to in Article 70(1) and information about the availability of the clinical investigation results in accordance with paragraph 6 of this Article. 3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be prepared in writing and be available to the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative. 4. In the interview referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, special attention shall be paid to the information needs of specific patient populations and of individual subjects, as well as to the methods used to give the information. 5. In the interview referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, it shall be verified that the subject has understood the information. 6. The subject shall be informed that a clinical investigation report and a summary presented in terms understandable to the intended user will be made available pursuant to Article 77(5) in the electronic system on clinical investigations referred to in Article 73 irrespective of the outcome of the clinical investigation, and shall be informed, to the extent possible, when they have become available. 7. This Regulation is without prejudice to national law requiring that, in addition to the informed consent given by the legally designated representative, a minor who is capable of forming an opinion and assessing the information given to him or her, shall also assent in order to participate in a clinical investigation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 63 Informed consent):
1. Informed consent shall be written, dated and signed by the person performing the interview referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, and by the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative after having been duly informed in accordance with paragraph 2. Where the subject is unable to write, consent may be given and recorded through appropriate alternative means in the presence of at least one impartial witness. In that case, the witness shall sign and date the informed consent document. The subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative shall be provided with a copy of the document or the record, as appropriate, by which informed consent has been given. The informed consent shall be documented. Adequate time shall be given for the subject or his or her legally designated representative to consider his or her decision to participate in the clinical investigation. 3. The information referred to in paragraph 2 shall be prepared in writing and be available to the subject or, where the subject is not able to give informed consent, his or her legally designated representative. 4. In the interview referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, special attention shall be paid to the information needs of specific patient populations and of individual subjects, as well as to the methods used to give the information. 5. In the interview referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, it shall be verified that the subject has understood the information. 6. The subject shall be informed that a clinical investigation report and a summary presented in terms understandable to the intended user will be made available pursuant to Article 77(5) in the electronic system on clinical investigations referred to in Article 73 irrespective of the outcome of the clinical investigation, and shall be informed, to the extent possible, when they have become available. 7. This Regulation is without prejudice to national law requiring that, in addition to the informed consent given by the legally designated representative, a minor who is capable of forming an opinion and assessing the information given to him or her, shall also assent in order to participate in a clinical investigation.
Article 64 Clinical investigations on incapacitated subjects
In the case of incapacitated subjects who have not given, or have not refused to give, informed consent before the onset of their incapacity, a clinical investigation may be conducted only where, in addition to the conditions set out in Article 62(4), all of the following conditions are met: (a) the informed consent of their legally designated representative has been obtained; (b) the incapacitated subjects have received the information referred to in Article 63(2) in a way that is adequate in view of their capacity to understand it; (c) the explicit wish of an incapacitated subject who is capable of forming an opinion and assessing the information referred to in Article 63(2) to refuse participation in, or to withdraw from, the clinical investigation at any time, is respected by the investigator; (d) no incentives or financial inducements are given to subjects or their legally designated representatives, except for compensation for expenses and loss of earnings directly related to the participation in the clinical investigation; (e) the clinical investigation is essential with respect to incapacitated subjects and data of comparable validity cannot be obtained in clinical investigations on persons able to give informed consent, or by other research methods; (f) the clinical investigation relates directly to a medical condition from which the subject suffers; (g) there are scientific grounds for expecting that participation in the clinical investigation will produce a direct benefit to the incapacitated subject outweighing the risks and burdens involved. 2. The subject shall as far as possible take part in the informed consent procedure.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (the ‘Medical Devices Regulation’ (MDR)) 1 and Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (the ‘ In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation’ (IVDR)) 2 of the European Parliament and of the Council set a strengthened regulatory framework for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs). Their objectives are a high level of protection of health for patients and users and the smooth functioning of the single market for these products. To achieve these objectives and to address issues identified with the previous regulatory framework, the Regulations set up a more robust system of conformity assessment to ensure the quality, safety and performance of devices placed on the EU market. The MDR has applied since 26 May 2021 3 . The transitional period provided for in Article 120 has been extended by Regulation (EU) 2023/607 4 and will end on either 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, depending on the device’s risk class and subject to certain conditions. The IVDR has applied since 26 May 2022. In January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of its transitional period, ranging from 26 May 2025 for high-risk IVDs to 26 May 2027 for lower-risk IVDs, and to 26 May 2028 for certain provisions concerning devices manufactured and used in health institutions 5 . This extension was not subject to conditions similar to the ones laid down for medical devices by Regulation (EU) 2023/607. This proposal for targeted amendments addresses two urgent issues. Firstly, it aims to further extend the transitional period for certain IVDs to mitigate the risk of shortages of these products, especially of high-risk IVDs, which are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations or for blood grouping for transfusions. Secondly, the proposal aims to enable a gradual roll-out of the electronic systems integrated into the European database on medical devices (‘Eudamed’) that are finalised, instead of deferring the mandatory use of Eudamed until the last of the six modules is completed. The use of Eudamed – and especially its systems for the registration of economic operators, devices and certificates – will improve transparency and provide information on devices on the EU market, helping to monitor the availability of devices. In addition, the proposal aims to impose a requirement on manufacturers to give prior notice before interrupting the supply of certain critical medical devices and IVDs. a) Transition of devices to the IVDR There is a wide variety of IVDs, including HIV tests for blood donation screening or individual diagnosis, cancer tests, pregnancy tests or SARS-CoV-2 tests. Around two thirds of all clinical decisions are based on information provided by IVDs 6 . It is paramount to ensure both a high level of safety and performance of IVDs and their availability to healthcare systems . The IVDR has introduced very substantial changes to the regulatory framework for IVDs with significant resource and capacity implications . According to the IVDR, IVDs are classified into different risk classes from class A (low risk) to class D (high risk). One of the most profound changes is the increased involvement of independent conformity assessment bodies (‘notified bodies’) in conformity assessment, in a way that is proportionate to the device’s risk class. Under the previous Directive 98/79/EC 7 , only a relatively small number of high-risk devices, i.e. about 8% of the more than 40 000 IVDs on the EU market covered by the Directive 8 , were subject to scrutiny by notified bodies. In October 2022, there were 1 551 valid certificates issued by notified bodies under Directive 98/79/EC 9 . Some of these have already expired (38 in 2022 and 165 in 2023); 482 certificates will expire in 2024 and 866 certificates will expire in 2025 (by 26 May) 10 . Under the IVDR, around 80% of IVDs will be subject to scrutiny by notified bodies, most of them for the first time 8 . As a consequence, the number of certificates under the IVDR is expected to be significantly higher than the number of certificates issued under Directive 98/79/EC . The relationship between the number of devices and the number of certificates covering them is complex, so no precise calculation can be made, but numbers in the order of 15 000 certificates and higher could reasonably be expected. M ore than 1 000 devices are in the highest risk class ( class D ) 11 . Under the IVDR , these devices require the issuance of both a quality management system certificate and an individual device technical documentation assessment certificate. Those figures are in stark contrast to the low number of certificates already issued and ongoing applications under the IVDR. In fact, the vast majority of IVDs have not yet transitioned to the IVDR. As of end of October 2023, manufacturers had submitted 1 378 applications for conformity assessment under the IVDR, resulting in 677 certificates issued by notified bodies across all risk classes. For class D IVDs, only 335 applications had been submitted and 117 certificates had been issued 12 . While there are still several years of transitional period remaining for classes C, B and A sterile, the transitional period for class D devices ends on 26 May 2025. Given the low number of certificates and applications for class D IVDs, and the long duration of the conformity assessment process as explained below, there is a high risk of shortages of many of these devices. Class D devices are used, for example, to test for infections in blood or organ donations, to test patients for life-threatening infectious diseases, or for blood grouping for transfusions. Therefore, there is a high risk of a public health crisis if there is a shortage of such devices. As explained above, in January 2022, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a staggered extension of the transitional period due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The slow rate of transition has made this extension insufficient. The reasons are multifaceted; however, they are underpinned by the far‑reaching nature of changes introduced by the IVDR and the resulting increased need for scientific, technical and regulatory expertise and capacity at all levels in the system, which require time to be built up. A t present, only 12 notified bodies 13 are designated under the IVDR, compared to 22 notified bodies designated under Directive 98/79/EC (18 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU) . A f urther 8 applications for designation as notified body are currently in pro gress. The staggering of the transitional periods by risk class in 2022 meant that the workload on notified bodies could be distributed over time , and provided relief to the sector 14 . Nevertheless, access to notified bodies has remained an issue, especially for small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs ) 11 . Notified bodies are also facing challenges due to the extensive changes introduced by the IVDR. They must apply new requirements for types of devices that they have not handled previously. The duration of the notified body’s assessment is affected by the often insufficient quality of manufacturers’ applications 15 . A s of July 2023 , t he average duration of the conformity assessment process combining quality management system and technical documentation assessment was around 18 months 15 . Thus, the overall notified body capacity in the EU is limited, due to both low numbers of notified bodies and challenges to their efficient and smooth operation. Additional transition time is needed to help address this persisting problem. More notified bodies will be designated over time and the efficiency in processing applications will improve as both manufacturers and notified bodies gain more experience with the IVDR. In the short term, it is also important to maintain the staggering of transitional periods by risk class to avoid a bottleneck at the level of notified bodies. Furthermore , it appears that many manufacturers are not sufficiently prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the IVDR. This may be due to various causes, including the complexity of these new requirements, lack of experience of interaction with notified bodies, and the continuous development of the IVDR framework, such as ongoing designation of notified bodies, and for class D IVDs adoption of common specifications and designation of EU reference laboratories. Around 90% of medical device companies are SMEs 16 , for which managing the transition can be especially challenging. More and more tools are being put in place to support manufacturers, with particular attention to SMEs, including : (i) guidance by the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) and by notified bodies ; (ii) webinars and training by notified bodies ; (iii) structured dialogue with notified bodies 17 ; or (iv) EU-funded work to make notified body capacity more visible 18 . Additional transition time is necessary to allow manufacturers to make greater use of these tools and therefore support the transition of their devices to the IVDR . This proposal aims to mitigate the risk of shortages of IVDs by giving manufacturers and notified bodies more time, under certain conditions, to complete the necessary conformity assessment procedures, without lowering the requirements. The need for additional time is most acute for mitigating shortages of class D devices. They constitute about 4% of the market 16 but their conformity assessment is intensive due to the requirement for individual technical documentation assessment and, where relevant, involvement of the scientific bodies (expert panel and EU reference laboratories). With only 12 notified bodies currently designated, capacity in the system to perform the required third party assessments remains limited, so an extension of the transitional period for class D IVDs should be combined with a shift in the transition deadlines for the other device groups as well to avoid a bottleneck in the certification process and to prevent shortages of these devices too. Class C and class B are large device groups (representing 26% and 49% of the market, respectively), and some of them are also subject to special requirements such as individual technical documentation assessment. It is also logical from the perspective of protection of public health that higher risk classes should be subject to the more stringent rules earlier than lower risk classes. The extension should be subject to conditions to support the transition to the IVDR, similar to the approach adopted in Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which extended the MDR transitional period. These conditions will ensure that only manufacturers that are actively taking the necessary steps to transition to the new rules and continue to place on the market devices meeting high safety standards will benefit from the additional time. In addition, at the latest by 26 May 2025, all manufacturers will have to put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(8) IVDR. Such an approach respects the work of those manufacturers that have already taken the necessary steps to comply with the IVDR. Finally, it is clear that an extension of the transitional period will provide only a short-term solution to mitigate the risk of shortages. It will not solve certain underlying structural problems related to the implementation of the IVDR, notably with regard to the specific situation of SMEs. Moreover, the transition must be completed to ensure the credibility and robustness of the EU medical device regulatory system and to provide the necessary legal certainty for a stable, innovative and safe environment. It is necessary to analyse problems related to the implementation of the IVDR and the MDR, and their root causes, to identify shortcomings of the regulatory framework and remedy them in the medium term with a view to ensuring patient safety and access to safe and performant devices in a sustainable manner. b) European database on med ic al devices (E udamed ) In accordance with Article 33 MDR and Article 30 IVDR, the Commission must set up, maintain and manage the European database on medical devices (Eudamed). Eudamed must include seven electronic systems including the UDI database 19 . It is being developed in accordance with functional specifications drawn up by the Commission in collaboration with the MDCG and endorsed by the MDCG. Pursuant to these specifications, Eudamed will consist of six modules 20 , covering all the features specified by the Regulations: UDI/Devices, Actors, Notified bodies/Certificates, Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance, Market Surveillance, and Clinical investigations/Performance studies . Three Eudamed modules have been available for voluntary use since December 2020 (Actors) and October 2021 (UDI/Devices; Notified bodies/Certificates). Two further modules (Market Surveillance; Post-Market Surveillance and Vigilance) are expected to be completed in Q2/2024. The last module (Clinical investigations/Performance studies) will not be completed before Q3/2026. Pursuant to the current MDR rules, Eudamed can only be used mandatorily from a certain date after the Commission has verified that Eudamed is fully functional and has published a notice to that effect. Therefore, the delayed development of the last module holds back the mandatory use of the electronic systems that have been completed already. The mandatory use of all six modules thus cannot be expected before Q4/2027, with additional transitional periods not ending before Q2/2029. However, the use of Eudamed is key for effective and efficient implementation of the MDR and IVDR and of high value to the work of the competent authorities and the Commission in monitoring the market. Moreover, the deployment of Eudamed has profound and beneficial implications in terms of resource savings for manufacturers as it prevents multiple registrations or instances of communication of data at national level. This proposal aims to enable a gradual implementation of individual Eudamed modules once they have been audited and declared functional. Mandatory use of several modules could then start as early as Q4/2025. Consequently, also the specific transitional provisions in the MDR and IVDR related to Eudamed need to be amended to enable a smooth progressive transfer from multiple registrations in national databases to a single registration in Eudamed. In addition, having regard to the delay in the development of the module for clinical investigations / performance studies, the timelines for the application of the coordinated assessment of clinical investigations and performance studies need to be adapted. Keeping the approach provided for in the MDR and the IVDR, the coordinated assessment should first be applied by Member States on an ‘opt-in’ basis. Five years after its voluntary application, the coordinated assessment should become mandatory for all Member States. c) Prior notice if supply of certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices is stopped Healthcare professionals, industry and competent authorities have reported that during the transitional period of the MDR and the IVDR, the supply of many medical devices and IVDs has or is likely to be stopped. In certain cases, especially if no or few alternative devices are available, the interruption of supply can result in serious harm or a risk of serious harm to patients or public health. This proposal aims to impose an obligation on manufacturers to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions before they cease, temporarily or permanently, the supply of a critical device. If manufacturers do not supply directly to health institutions or healthcare professionals, they should inform the relevant economic operators in the supply chain, which then can inform the health institutions. This mechanism will enable the authority and health institutions to consider mitigating measures to ensure patient health and safety. In accordance with Article 105 MDR, the MDCG may decide to provide guidance with the aim to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of this prior notice mechanism. 
Revised version (Article 64 Clinical investigations on incapacitated subjects):
2. The subject shall as far as possible take part in the informed consent procedure.
Article 65 Clinical investigations on minors
A clinical investigation on minors may be conducted only where, in addition to the conditions set out in Article 62(4), all of the following conditions are met: (a) the informed consent of their legally designated representative has been obtained; (b) the minors have received the information referred to in Article 63(2) in a way adapted to their age and mental maturity and from investigators or members of the investigating team who are trained or experienced in working with children; (c) the explicit wish of a minor who is capable of forming an opinion and assessing the information referred to in Article 63(2) to refuse participation in, or to withdraw from, the clinical investigation at any time, is respected by the investigator; (d) no incentives or financial inducements are given to the subject or his or her legally designated representative except for compensation for expenses and loss of earnings directly related to the participation in the clinical investigation; (e) the clinical investigation is intended to investigate treatments for a medical condition that only occurs in minors or the clinical investigation is essential with respect to minors to validate data obtained in clinical investigations on persons able to give informed consent or by other research methods; (f) the clinical investigation either relates directly to a medical condition from which the minor concerned suffers or is of such a nature that it can only be carried out on minors; (g) there are scientific grounds for expecting that participation in the clinical investigation will produce a direct benefit to the minor subject outweighing the risks and burdens involved; (h) the minor shall take part in the informed consent procedure in a way adapted to his or her age and mental maturity; (i) if during a clinical investigation the minor reaches the age of legal competence to give informed consent as defined in national law, his or her express informed consent shall be obtained before that subject can continue to participate in the clinical investigation.
Article 66 Clinical investigations on pregnant or breastfeeding women
A clinical investigation on pregnant or breastfeeding women may be conducted only where, in addition to the conditions set out in Article 62(4), all of the following conditions are met: (a) the clinical investigation has the potential to produce a direct benefit for the pregnant or breastfeeding woman concerned, or her embryo, foetus or child after birth, outweighing the risks and burdens involved; (b) where research is undertaken on breastfeeding women, particular care is taken to avoid any adverse impact on the health of the child; (c) no incentives or financial inducements are given to the subject except for compensation for expenses and loss of earnings directly related to the participation in the clinical investigation.
Article 67 Additional national measures
Member States may maintain additional measures regarding persons performing mandatory military service, persons deprived of liberty, persons who, due to a judicial decision, cannot take part in clinical investigations, or persons in residential care institutions.