Article 74 Coordinated assessment procedure for performance studies
1. By means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69, the sponsor of a performance study to be conducted in more than one Member State may submit, for the purpose of Article 66, a single application that, upon receipt, is transmitted electronically to all Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted. 2. The sponsor shall propose in the single application referred to in paragraph 1 that one of the Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted acts as coordinating Member State. The Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted shall, within six days of submission of the application, agree on one of them taking the role of the coordinating Member State. If they do not agree on a coordinating Member State, the coordinating Member State proposed by the sponsor shall assume that role. 3. Under the direction of the coordinating Member State referred to in paragraph 2, the Member States concerned shall coordinate their assessment of the application, in particular of the documentation referred to in Chapter I of Annex XIV. With regard to documentation other than that referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the coordinating Member State shall: (a) within six days of receipt of the single application, notify the sponsor that it is the coordinating Member State (‘notification date’); (b) for the purpose of the validation of the application, take into account any considerations submitted within seven days of the notification date by any Member State concerned; (d) establish the results of its assessment in a draft assessment report to be transmitted within 26 days of the validation date to the Member States concerned. By day 38 after the validation date, the other Member States concerned shall transmit their comments and proposals on the draft assessment report and the underlying application to the coordinating Member State which shall take due account of those comments and proposals in its finalisation of the final assessment report, to be transmitted within 45 days of the validation date to the sponsor and the other Member States concerned. The final assessment report shall be taken into account by all Member States concerned when deciding on the sponsor's application in accordance with Article 66(7). 5. As regards the assessment of the documentation referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, each Member State concerned may request, on a single occasion, additional information from the sponsor. The sponsor shall submit the requested additional information within the period set by the Member State concerned, which shall not exceed 12 days from the receipt of the request. The expiry of the last deadline pursuant to point (d) of paragraph 4 shall be suspended from the date of the request until such time as the additional information has been received. 6. For class C and D devices, the coordinating Member State may also extend the periods referred to in paragraph 4 by a further 50 days, for the purpose of consulting with experts. 8. Where the conclusion of the coordinating Member State concerning the area of coordinated assessment is that the conduct of the performance study is acceptable or acceptable subject to compliance with specific conditions, that conclusion shall be deemed to be the conclusion of all Member State(s) concerned. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, a Member State concerned may only disagree with the conclusion of the coordinating Member State concerning the area of coordinated assessment on the following grounds: (a) when it considers that participation in the performance study would lead to a subject receiving treatment inferior to that received in normal clinical practice in that Member State concerned; (b) infringement of national law; or (c) considerations as regards subject safety and data reliability and robustness submitted under point (d) of paragraph 4. Where one of the Member States concerned disagrees with the conclusion on the basis of the second subparagraph of this paragraph, it shall communicate its disagreement, together with a detailed justification, through the electronic system referred to in Article 69 to the Commission, to all other Member States concerned, and to the sponsor. 9. Where the conclusion of the coordinating Member State concerning the area of coordinated assessment is that the performance study is not acceptable, that conclusion shall be deemed to be the conclusion of all Member States concerned. 10. A Member State concerned shall refuse to authorise a performance study if it disagrees with the conclusion of the coordinating Member State as regards any of the grounds referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 8, or if it finds, on duly justified grounds, that the aspects addressed in Sections 1.13, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of Chapter I of Annex XIV are not complied with, or where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion in relation to that performance study which is valid in accordance with national law for that entire Member State. That Member State shall provide for an appeal procedure in respect of such refusal. 11. Each Member State concerned shall notify the sponsor through the electronic system referred to in Article 69 as to whether the performance study is authorised, whether it is authorised subject to conditions, or whether authorisation has been refused. Notification shall be done by way of one single decision within five days of the transmission, pursuant to point (d) of paragraph 4 of this Article, by the coordinating Member State of the final assessment report. Where an authorisation of a performance study is subject to conditions, those conditions may only be such that, by their nature, they cannot be fulfilled at the time of that authorisation. 12. Any substantial modifications as referred to in Article 71 shall be notified to the Member States concerned by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69. Any assessment as to whether there are grounds for disagreement as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 8 of this Article shall be carried out under the direction of the coordinating Member State, except for substantial modifications concerning sections 1.13, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of Chapter I of Annex XIV and point (c) of Section 2.3.2 of Part A of Annex XIII, which shall be assessed separately by each Member State concerned. 13. The Commission shall provide administrative support to the coordinating Member State in the accomplishment of its tasks under this Chapter. 14. The procedure set out in this Article shall, until 25 May 2029, be applied only by those of the Member States in which the performance studies are to be conducted which have agreed to apply it. From 26 May 2029, all Member States shall be required to apply that 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 74 Coordinated assessment procedure for performance studies):
1. By means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69, the sponsor of a performance study to be conducted in more than one Member State may submit, for the purpose of Article 66, a single application that, upon receipt, is transmitted electronically to all Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted. 2. The sponsor shall propose in the single application referred to in paragraph 1 that one of the Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted acts as coordinating Member State. The Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted shall, within six days of submission of the application, agree on one of them taking the role of the coordinating Member State. If they do not agree on a coordinating Member State, the coordinating Member State proposed by the sponsor shall assume that role. 3. Under the direction of the coordinating Member State referred to in paragraph 2, the Member States concerned shall coordinate their assessment of the application, in particular of the documentation referred to in Chapter I of Annex XIV. The final assessment report shall be taken into account by all Member States concerned when deciding on the sponsor's application in accordance with Article 66(7). 5. As regards the assessment of the documentation referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, each Member State concerned may request, on a single occasion, additional information from the sponsor. The sponsor shall submit the requested additional information within the period set by the Member State concerned, which shall not exceed 12 days from the receipt of the request. The expiry of the last deadline pursuant to point (d) of paragraph 4 shall be suspended from the date of the request until such time as the additional information has been received. 6. For class C and D devices, the coordinating Member State may also extend the periods referred to in paragraph 4 by a further 50 days, for the purpose of consulting with experts. 8. Where the conclusion of the coordinating Member State concerning the area of coordinated assessment is that the conduct of the performance study is acceptable or acceptable subject to compliance with specific conditions, that conclusion shall be deemed to be the conclusion of all Member State(s) concerned. Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, a Member State concerned may only disagree with the conclusion of the coordinating Member State concerning the area of coordinated assessment on the following grounds: (a) when it considers that participation in the performance study would lead to a subject receiving treatment inferior to that received in normal clinical practice in that Member State concerned; (b) infringement of national law; or (c) considerations as regards subject safety and data reliability and robustness submitted under point (d) of paragraph 4. Where one of the Member States concerned disagrees with the conclusion on the basis of the second subparagraph of this paragraph, it shall communicate its disagreement, together with a detailed justification, through the electronic system referred to in Article 69 to the Commission, to all other Member States concerned, and to the sponsor. 9. Where the conclusion of the coordinating Member State concerning the area of coordinated assessment is that the performance study is not acceptable, that conclusion shall be deemed to be the conclusion of all Member States concerned. 10. A Member State concerned shall refuse to authorise a performance study if it disagrees with the conclusion of the coordinating Member State as regards any of the grounds referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 8, or if it finds, on duly justified grounds, that the aspects addressed in Sections 1.13, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of Chapter I of Annex XIV are not complied with, or where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion in relation to that performance study which is valid in accordance with national law for that entire Member State. That Member State shall provide for an appeal procedure in respect of such refusal. 11. Each Member State concerned shall notify the sponsor through the electronic system referred to in Article 69 as to whether the performance study is authorised, whether it is authorised subject to conditions, or whether authorisation has been refused. Notification shall be done by way of one single decision within five days of the transmission, pursuant to point (d) of paragraph 4 of this Article, by the coordinating Member State of the final assessment report. Where an authorisation of a performance study is subject to conditions, those conditions may only be such that, by their nature, they cannot be fulfilled at the time of that authorisation. 12. Any substantial modifications as referred to in Article 71 shall be notified to the Member States concerned by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69. Any assessment as to whether there are grounds for disagreement as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 8 of this Article shall be carried out under the direction of the coordinating Member State, except for substantial modifications concerning sections 1.13, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of Chapter I of Annex XIV and point (c) of Section 2.3.2 of Part A of Annex XIII, which shall be assessed separately by each Member State concerned. 13. The Commission shall provide administrative support to the coordinating Member State in the accomplishment of its tasks under this Chapter. 14. All Member States shall be required to apply the procedure set out in this Article from the date corresponding to 5 years from the date of publication of the notice referred to in Article 34(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, informing that the electronic system referred to in Article 30(2), point (e), of this Regulation is functional and meets the functional specifications drawn up pursuant to Article 34(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/745. Before the date set out in the first subparagraph of this paragraph and at the earliest 6 months from the date of publication of the notice referred to in that subparagraph, the procedure set out in this Article shall be applied only by those Member States in which the performance study is to be conducted which have agreed to apply it.
Article 75 Review of the coordinated assessment procedure
By 27 May 2028, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the experience gained from the application of Article 74 and, if necessary, propose a review of Article 74(14) and point (g) of Article 113(3).
Article 76 Recording and reporting of adverse events that occur during performance studies
The sponsor shall fully record all of the following: (a) any adverse event of a type identified in the performance study plan as being critical to the evaluation of the results of that performance study; (b) any serious adverse event; (c) any device deficiency that might have led to a serious adverse event if appropriate action had not been taken, intervention had not occurred, or circumstances had been less fortunate; any new findings in relation to any event referred to in points (a) to (c). The sponsor shall report without delay to all Member States in which a performance study is being conducted all of the following by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69: (a) any serious adverse event that has a causal relationship with the device, the comparator or the study procedure or where such causal relationship is reasonably possible; (c) any new findings in relation to any event referred to in points (a) and (b). The period for reporting shall take account of the severity of the event. Where necessary to ensure timely reporting, the sponsor may submit an initial report that is incomplete followed up by a complete report. Upon request by any Member State in which the performance study is being conducted, the sponsor shall provide all information referred to in paragraph 1. 3. The sponsor shall also report to the Member States in which the performance study is being conducted any event referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article that occurred in third countries in which a performance study is performed under the same clinical performance study plan as the one applying to a performance study covered by this Regulation by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69. 4. In the case of a performance study for which the sponsor has used the single application referred to in Article 74, the sponsor shall report any event as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69. Upon receipt, this report shall be transmitted electronically to all Member States in which the performance study is being conducted. Under the direction of the coordinating Member State referred to in Article 74(2), the Member States shall coordinate their assessment of serious adverse events and device deficiencies to determine whether to modify, suspend or terminate the performance study or whether to revoke the authorisation for that performance study. This paragraph shall not affect the rights of the other Member States to perform their own evaluation and to adopt measures in accordance with this Regulation in order to ensure the protection of public health and patient safety. The coordinating Member State and the Commission shall be kept informed of the outcome of any such evaluation and the adoption of any such measures. 5. In the case of PMPF studies referred to in Article 70(1), the provisions on vigilance laid down in Articles 82 to 85 and in the implementing acts adopted pursuant to Article 86 shall apply instead of this Article. 6. Notwithstanding paragraph 5, this Article shall apply where a causal relationship between the serious adverse event and the preceding performance study has been established.
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 76 Recording and reporting of adverse events that occur during performance studies):
The period for reporting shall take account of the severity of the event. Where necessary to ensure timely reporting, the sponsor may submit an initial report that is incomplete followed up by a complete report. Upon request by any Member State in which the performance study is being conducted, the sponsor shall provide all information referred to in paragraph 1. 3. The sponsor shall also report to the Member States in which the performance study is being conducted any event referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article that occurred in third countries in which a performance study is performed under the same clinical performance study plan as the one applying to a performance study covered by this Regulation by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69. 4. In the case of a performance study for which the sponsor has used the single application referred to in Article 74, the sponsor shall report any event as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 69. Upon receipt, this report shall be transmitted electronically to all Member States in which the performance study is being conducted. Under the direction of the coordinating Member State referred to in Article 74(2), the Member States shall coordinate their assessment of serious adverse events and device deficiencies to determine whether to modify, suspend or terminate the performance study or whether to revoke the authorisation for that performance study. This paragraph shall not affect the rights of the other Member States to perform their own evaluation and to adopt measures in accordance with this Regulation in order to ensure the protection of public health and patient safety. The coordinating Member State and the Commission shall be kept informed of the outcome of any such evaluation and the adoption of any such measures. 5. In the case of PMPF studies referred to in Article 70(1), the provisions on vigilance laid down in Articles 82 to 85 and in the implementing acts adopted pursuant to Article 86 shall apply instead of this Article. 6. Notwithstanding paragraph 5, this Article shall apply where a causal relationship between the serious adverse event and the preceding performance study has been established.
Article 77 Implementing acts
The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, establish the detailed arrangements and procedural aspects necessary for the implementation of this Chapter, as regards the following: (a) harmonised electronic forms for the application for performance studies and their assessment as referred to in Articles 66 and 74, taking into account specific categories or groups of devices; (b) the functioning of the electronic system referred to in Article 69; (c) harmonised electronic forms for the notification of PMPF studies as referred to in Article 70(1), and of substantial modifications as referred to in Article 71; (d) the exchange of information between Member States as referred to in Article 72; (e) harmonised electronic forms for the reporting of serious adverse events and device deficiencies as referred to in Article 76; (f) the timelines for the reporting of serious adverse events and device deficiencies, taking into account the severity of the event to be reported as referred to in Article 76; (g) uniform application of the requirements regarding the clinical evidence/data needed to demonstrate compliance with the general safety and performance requirements set out in Annex I. The implementing acts referred to in the first paragraph shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 107(3).
Article 78 Post-market surveillance system of the manufacturer
1. For each device manufacturers shall plan, establish, document, implement, maintain and update a post-market surveillance system in a manner that is proportionate to the risk class and appropriate for the type of device. That system shall be an integral part of the manufacturer's quality management system referred to in Article 10(8). 2. The post-market surveillance system shall be suited to actively and systematically gathering, recording and analysing relevant data on the quality, performance and safety of a device throughout its entire lifetime, and to drawing the necessary conclusions and to determining, implementing and monitoring any preventive and corrective actions. Data gathered by the manufacturer's post-market surveillance system shall in particular be used: (a) to update the benefit-risk determination and to improve the risk management as referred to in Chapter I of Annex I; (b) to update the design and manufacturing information, the instructions for use and the labelling; (c) to update the performance evaluation; (d) to update the summary of safety and performance referred to in Article 29; (e) for the identification of needs for preventive, corrective or field safety corrective action; (f) for the identification of options to improve the usability, performance and safety of the device; (g) when relevant, to contribute to the post-market surveillance of other devices; and (h) to detect and report trends in accordance with Article 83. The technical documentation shall be updated accordingly. 4. If, in the course of the post-market surveillance, a need for preventive or corrective action or both is identified, the manufacturer shall implement the appropriate measures and inform the competent authorities concerned and, where applicable, the notified body. Where a serious incident is identified or a field safety corrective action is implemented, it shall be reported in accordance with Article 82.
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 78 Post-market surveillance system of the manufacturer):
1. For each device manufacturers shall plan, establish, document, implement, maintain and update a post-market surveillance system in a manner that is proportionate to the risk class and appropriate for the type of device. That system shall be an integral part of the manufacturer's quality management system referred to in Article 10(8). 2. The post-market surveillance system shall be suited to actively and systematically gathering, recording and analysing relevant data on the quality, performance and safety of a device throughout its entire lifetime, and to drawing the necessary conclusions and to determining, implementing and monitoring any preventive and corrective actions. The technical documentation shall be updated accordingly. 4. If, in the course of the post-market surveillance, a need for preventive or corrective action or both is identified, the manufacturer shall implement the appropriate measures and inform the competent authorities concerned and, where applicable, the notified body. Where a serious incident is identified or a field safety corrective action is implemented, it shall be reported in accordance with Article 82.
Article 79 Post-market surveillance plan
The post-market surveillance system referred to in Article 78 shall be based on a post-market surveillance plan, the requirements for which are set out in Section 1 of Annex III. The post-market surveillance plan shall be part of the technical documentation specified in Annex II.
Article 80 Post-market surveillance report
Manufacturers of class A and B devices shall prepare a post-market surveillance report summarising the results and conclusions of the analyses of the post-market surveillance data gathered as a result of the post-market surveillance plan referred to in Article 79 together with a rationale and description of any preventive and corrective actions taken. The report shall be updated when necessary and made available to the notified body and the competent authority upon request.
Article 81 Periodic safety update report
1. Manufacturers of class C and class D devices shall prepare a periodic safety update report (‘PSUR’) for each device and where relevant for each category or group of devices summarising the results and conclusions of the analyses of the post-market surveillance data gathered as a result of the post-market surveillance plan referred to in Article 79 together with a rationale and description of any preventive and corrective actions taken. Throughout the lifetime of the device concerned, that PSUR shall set out: (a) the conclusions of the benefit-risk determination; (b) the main findings of the PMPF; and (c) the volume of sales of the device and an estimate of the size and other characteristics of the population using the device and, where practicable, the usage frequency of the device. Manufacturers of class C and D devices shall update the PSUR at least annually. That PSUR shall be part of the technical documentation as specified in Annexes II and III. 2. Manufacturers of class D devices shall submit PSUR by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 87 to the notified body involved in the conformity assessment of such devices in accordance with Article 48. The notified body shall review the report and add its evaluation to that electronic system with details of any action taken. Such PSUR and the evaluation by the notified body shall be made available to competent authorities through that electronic system. 3. For class C devices, manufacturers shall make PSURs available to the notified body involved in the conformity assessment and, upon request, to competent authorities.
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 81 Periodic safety update report):
1. Manufacturers of class C and D devices shall update the PSUR at least annually. That PSUR shall be part of the technical documentation as specified in Annexes II and III. 2. Manufacturers of class D devices shall submit PSUR by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 87 to the notified body involved in the conformity assessment of such devices in accordance with Article 48. The notified body shall review the report and add its evaluation to that electronic system with details of any action taken. Such PSUR and the evaluation by the notified body shall be made available to competent authorities through that electronic system. 3. For class C devices, manufacturers shall make PSURs available to the notified body involved in the conformity assessment and, upon request, to competent authorities.
Article 82 Reporting of serious incidents and field safety corrective actions
1. Manufacturers of devices, made available on the Union market, other than devices for performance study, shall report, to the relevant competent authorities, in accordance with Articles 87(5) and (7), the following: (a) any serious incident involving devices made available on the Union market, except expected erroneous results which are clearly documented and quantified in the product information and in the technical documentation and are subject to trend reporting pursuant to Article 83; (b) any field safety corrective action in respect of devices made available on the Union market, including any field safety corrective action undertaken in a third country in relation to a device which is also legally made available on the Union market, if the reason for the field safety corrective action is not limited to the device made available in the third country. The reports referred to in the first subparagraph shall be submitted through the electronic system referred to in Article 87. 2. As a general rule, the period for the reporting referred to in paragraph 1 shall take account of the severity of the serious incident. 3. Manufacturers shall report any serious incident as referred to in point (a) immediately after they have established a causal relationship between that incident and their device or that such causal relationship is reasonably possible, and not later than 15 days after they become aware of the incident. 4. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, in the event of a serious public health threat the report referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided immediately, and not later than 2 days after the manufacturer becomes aware of that threat. 5. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, in the event of death or an unanticipated serious deterioration in a person's state of health the report shall be provided immediately after the manufacturer has established or as soon as it suspects a causal relationship between the device and the serious incident but not later than 10 days after the date on which the manufacturer becomes aware of the serious incident. 6. Where necessary to ensure timely reporting, the manufacturer may submit an initial report that is incomplete followed up by a complete report. 7. If, after becoming aware of a potentially reportable incident, the manufacturer is uncertain about whether the incident is reportable, it shall nevertheless submit a report within the timeframe required in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5. 8. Except in cases of urgency in which the manufacturer needs to undertake field safety corrective action immediately, the manufacturer shall, without undue delay, report the field safety corrective action referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, in advance of the field safety corrective action being undertaken. 9. For similar serious incidents that occur with the same device or device type and for which the root cause has been identified or a field safety corrective action implemented or where the incidents are common and well documented, the manufacturer may provide periodic summary reports instead of individual serious incident reports, on condition that the coordinating competent authority referred to in Article 84(9), in consultation with the competent authorities referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 87(8), has agreed with the manufacturer on the format, content and frequency of the periodic summary reporting. Where a single competent authority is referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 87(8), the manufacturer may provide periodic summary reports following agreement with that competent authority. 10. The Member States shall take appropriate measures such as organising targeted information campaigns, to encourage and enable healthcare professionals, users and patients to report to the competent authorities suspected serious incidents referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1. The competent authorities shall record centrally at national level reports they receive from healthcare professionals, users and patients. 11. Where a competent authority of a Member State obtains such reports on suspected serious incidents referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 from healthcare professionals, users or patients, it shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the manufacturer of the device concerned is informed of the suspected serious incident without delay. Where the manufacturer of the device concerned considers that the incident is a serious incident, it shall provide a report in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article on that serious incident to the competent authority of the Member State in which that serious incident occurred and shall take the appropriate follow-up action in accordance with Article 84. Where the manufacturer of the device concerned considers that the incident is not a serious incident or is to be treated as an increase in expected erroneous results, which will be covered by trend reporting in accordance with to Article 83, it shall provide an explanatory statement. If the competent authority does not agree with the conclusion of the explanatory statement, it may require the manufacturer to provide a report in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article and require it to ensure that appropriate follow-up action is taken in accordance with Article 84.
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 82 Reporting of serious incidents and field safety corrective actions):
The reports referred to in the first subparagraph shall be submitted through the electronic system referred to in Article 87. 2. As a general rule, the period for the reporting referred to in paragraph 1 shall take account of the severity of the serious incident. 3. Manufacturers shall report any serious incident as referred to in point (a) immediately after they have established a causal relationship between that incident and their device or that such causal relationship is reasonably possible, and not later than 15 days after they become aware of the incident. 4. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, in the event of a serious public health threat the report referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided immediately, and not later than 2 days after the manufacturer becomes aware of that threat. 5. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, in the event of death or an unanticipated serious deterioration in a person's state of health the report shall be provided immediately after the manufacturer has established or as soon as it suspects a causal relationship between the device and the serious incident but not later than 10 days after the date on which the manufacturer becomes aware of the serious incident. 6. Where necessary to ensure timely reporting, the manufacturer may submit an initial report that is incomplete followed up by a complete report. 7. If, after becoming aware of a potentially reportable incident, the manufacturer is uncertain about whether the incident is reportable, it shall nevertheless submit a report within the timeframe required in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5. 8. Except in cases of urgency in which the manufacturer needs to undertake field safety corrective action immediately, the manufacturer shall, without undue delay, report the field safety corrective action referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1, in advance of the field safety corrective action being undertaken. 9. For similar serious incidents that occur with the same device or device type and for which the root cause has been identified or a field safety corrective action implemented or where the incidents are common and well documented, the manufacturer may provide periodic summary reports instead of individual serious incident reports, on condition that the coordinating competent authority referred to in Article 84(9), in consultation with the competent authorities referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 87(8), has agreed with the manufacturer on the format, content and frequency of the periodic summary reporting. Where a single competent authority is referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 87(8), the manufacturer may provide periodic summary reports following agreement with that competent authority. 10. The Member States shall take appropriate measures such as organising targeted information campaigns, to encourage and enable healthcare professionals, users and patients to report to the competent authorities suspected serious incidents referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1. The competent authorities shall record centrally at national level reports they receive from healthcare professionals, users and patients. 11. Where a competent authority of a Member State obtains such reports on suspected serious incidents referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 from healthcare professionals, users or patients, it shall take the necessary steps to ensure that the manufacturer of the device concerned is informed of the suspected serious incident without delay. Where the manufacturer of the device concerned considers that the incident is a serious incident, it shall provide a report in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article on that serious incident to the competent authority of the Member State in which that serious incident occurred and shall take the appropriate follow-up action in accordance with Article 84. Where the manufacturer of the device concerned considers that the incident is not a serious incident or is to be treated as an increase in expected erroneous results, which will be covered by trend reporting in accordance with to Article 83, it shall provide an explanatory statement. If the competent authority does not agree with the conclusion of the explanatory statement, it may require the manufacturer to provide a report in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Article and require it to ensure that appropriate follow-up action is taken in accordance with Article 84.
Article 83 Trend reporting
1. Manufacturers shall report by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 87 any statistically significant increase in the frequency or severity of incidents that are not serious incidents that could have a significant impact on the benefit-risk analysis referred to in Sections 1 and 8 of Annex I and which have led or may lead to unacceptable risks to the health or safety of patients, users or other persons or of any significant increase in expected erroneous results established in comparison to the stated performance of the device as referred to in points (a) and (b) of Section 9.1 of Annex I and specified in the technical documentation and product information. The manufacturer shall specify how to manage the incidents referred to in the first subparagraph and the methodology used for determining any statistically significant increase in the frequency or severity of such events or change in performance, as well as the observation period, in the post-market surveillance plan referred to in Article 79. 2. The competent authorities may conduct their own assessments on the trend reports referred to in paragraph 1 and require the manufacturer to adopt appropriate measures in accordance with this Regulation in order to ensure the protection of public health and patient safety. Each competent authority shall inform the Commission, the other competent authorities and the notified body that issued the certificate, of the results of such assessment and of the adoption of such measures.
Article 84 Analysis of serious incidents and field safety corrective actions
1. Following the reporting of a serious incident pursuant to Article 82(1), the manufacturer shall, without delay, perform the necessary investigations in relation to the serious incident and the devices concerned. This shall include risk assessment of the incident and field safety corrective action taking into account the criteria as referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article as appropriate. The manufacturer shall co-operate with the competent authorities and where relevant with the notified body concerned during the investigations referred to in the first subparagraph and shall not perform any investigation which involves altering the device or a sample of the batch concerned in a way which may affect any subsequent evaluation of the causes of the incident, prior to informing the competent authorities of such action. 2. Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that any information regarding a serious incident that has occurred within their territory, or a field safety corrective action that has been or is to be undertaken within their territory, and that is brought to their knowledge in accordance with Article 82 is evaluated centrally at national level by their competent authority, if possible together with the manufacturer, and, where relevant, the notified body concerned. 3. In the context of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall evaluate the risks arising from the reported serious incident and evaluate any field safety corrective actions, taking into account the protection of public health and criteria such as causality, detectability and probability of recurrence of the problem, frequency of use of the device, probability of occurrence of direct or indirect harm, the severity of that harm, the clinical benefit of the device, intended and potential users, and the population affected. The competent authority shall also evaluate the adequacy of the field safety corrective action envisaged or undertaken by the manufacturer and the need for, and kind of, any other corrective action, in particular taking into account the principle of inherent safety contained in Annex I. Upon request by the national competent authority, manufacturers shall provide for all documents necessary for the risk assessment. 4. The competent authority shall monitor the manufacturer's investigation of a serious incident. Where necessary, a competent authority may intervene in a manufacturer's investigation or initiate an independent investigation. 5. The manufacturer shall provide a final report to the competent authority setting out its findings from the investigation by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 87. The report shall set out conclusions and where relevant indicate corrective actions to be taken. 6. In the case of companion diagnostic, the evaluating competent authority or the coordinating competent authority referred to in paragraph 9 of this Article shall, depending on whether the relevant competent authority of the Member State that authorised the medicinal products or the EMA was consulted by the notified body in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 5.2 of Annex IX and Section 3.11 of Annex X, inform that national competent authority or the EMA, as appropriate. 7. After carrying out the evaluation in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, the evaluating competent authority shall, through the electronic system referred to in Article 87, inform without delay the other competent authorities of the corrective action taken or envisaged by the manufacturer or required of it to minimise the risk of recurrence of the serious incident, including information on the underlying serious incidents and the outcome of its assessment. 8. The manufacturer shall ensure that information about the field safety corrective action taken is brought without delay to the attention of users of the device in question by means of a field safety notice. The field safety notice shall be edited in an official Union language or languages determined by the Member State in which the field safety corrective action is taken. Except in cases of urgency, the content of the draft field safety notice shall be submitted to the evaluating competent authority or, in the cases referred to in paragraph 9, to the coordinating competent authority to allow them to make comments. Unless duly justified by the situation of the individual Member State, the content of the field safety notice shall be consistent in all Member States. The field safety notice shall allow the correct identification of the device or devices involved, in particular by including the relevant UDIs, and the correct identification, in particular by including the SRN, if already issued, of the manufacturer that has undertaken the field safety corrective action. The field safety notice shall explain, in a clear manner, without understating the level of risk, the reasons for the field safety corrective action with reference to the device malfunction and associated risks for patients, users or other persons and shall clearly indicate all the actions to be taken by users. The manufacturer shall enter the field safety notice in the electronic system referred to in Article 87 through which that notice shall be accessible to the public. 9. The competent authorities shall actively participate in a procedure in order to coordinate their assessments referred to in paragraph 3 in the following cases: (a) where there is concern regarding a particular serious incident or cluster of serious incidents relating to the same device or type of device of the same manufacturer in more than one Member State; (b) where the appropriateness of a field safety corrective action that is proposed by a manufacturer in more than one Member State is in question. The competent authorities shall actively participate in a procedure in order to coordinate their assessments referred to in paragraph 3 in the following cases: (a) where there is concern regarding a particular serious incident or cluster of serious incidents relating to the same device or type of device of the same manufacturer in more than one Member State; (b) where the appropriateness of a field safety corrective action that is proposed by a manufacturer in more than one Member State is in question. That coordinated procedure shall cover the following: — designation of a coordinating competent authority on a case by case basis, when required; — defining the coordinated assessment process, including the tasks and responsibilities of the coordinating competent authority and the involvement of other competent authorities. Unless otherwise agreed between the competent authorities, the coordinating competent authority shall be the competent authority of the Member State in which the manufacturer has its registered place of business. The coordinating competent authority shall, through the electronic system referred to in Article 87, inform the manufacturer, the other competent authorities and the Commission that it has assumed the role of coordinating authority. 10. The designation of a coordinating competent authority shall not affect the rights of the other competent authorities to perform their own assessment and to adopt measures in accordance with this Regulation in order to ensure the protection of public health and patient safety. The coordinating competent authority and the Commission shall be kept informed of the outcome of any such assessment and the adoption of any such measures. 11. The Commission shall provide administrative support to the coordinating competent authority in the accomplishment of its tasks under this Chapter.
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 84 Analysis of serious incidents and field safety corrective actions):
1. Following the reporting of a serious incident pursuant to Article 82(1), the manufacturer shall, without delay, perform the necessary investigations in relation to the serious incident and the devices concerned. This shall include risk assessment of the incident and field safety corrective action taking into account the criteria as referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article as appropriate. The manufacturer shall co-operate with the competent authorities and where relevant with the notified body concerned during the investigations referred to in the first subparagraph and shall not perform any investigation which involves altering the device or a sample of the batch concerned in a way which may affect any subsequent evaluation of the causes of the incident, prior to informing the competent authorities of such action. 2. Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that any information regarding a serious incident that has occurred within their territory, or a field safety corrective action that has been or is to be undertaken within their territory, and that is brought to their knowledge in accordance with Article 82 is evaluated centrally at national level by their competent authority, if possible together with the manufacturer, and, where relevant, the notified body concerned. 3. In the context of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority shall evaluate the risks arising from the reported serious incident and evaluate any field safety corrective actions, taking into account the protection of public health and criteria such as causality, detectability and probability of recurrence of the problem, frequency of use of the device, probability of occurrence of direct or indirect harm, the severity of that harm, the clinical benefit of the device, intended and potential users, and the population affected. The competent authority shall also evaluate the adequacy of the field safety corrective action envisaged or undertaken by the manufacturer and the need for, and kind of, any other corrective action, in particular taking into account the principle of inherent safety contained in Annex I. Upon request by the national competent authority, manufacturers shall provide for all documents necessary for the risk assessment. 4. The competent authority shall monitor the manufacturer's investigation of a serious incident. Where necessary, a competent authority may intervene in a manufacturer's investigation or initiate an independent investigation. 5. The manufacturer shall provide a final report to the competent authority setting out its findings from the investigation by means of the electronic system referred to in Article 87. The report shall set out conclusions and where relevant indicate corrective actions to be taken. 6. In the case of companion diagnostic, the evaluating competent authority or the coordinating competent authority referred to in paragraph 9 of this Article shall, depending on whether the relevant competent authority of the Member State that authorised the medicinal products or the EMA was consulted by the notified body in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 5.2 of Annex IX and Section 3.11 of Annex X, inform that national competent authority or the EMA, as appropriate. 7. After carrying out the evaluation in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, the evaluating competent authority shall, through the electronic system referred to in Article 87, inform without delay the other competent authorities of the corrective action taken or envisaged by the manufacturer or required of it to minimise the risk of recurrence of the serious incident, including information on the underlying serious incidents and the outcome of its assessment. 8. The manufacturer shall ensure that information about the field safety corrective action taken is brought without delay to the attention of users of the device in question by means of a field safety notice. The field safety notice shall be edited in an official Union language or languages determined by the Member State in which the field safety corrective action is taken. Except in cases of urgency, the content of the draft field safety notice shall be submitted to the evaluating competent authority or, in the cases referred to in paragraph 9, to the coordinating competent authority to allow them to make comments. Unless duly justified by the situation of the individual Member State, the content of the field safety notice shall be consistent in all Member States. The field safety notice shall allow the correct identification of the device or devices involved, in particular by including the relevant UDIs, and the correct identification, in particular by including the SRN, if already issued, of the manufacturer that has undertaken the field safety corrective action. The field safety notice shall explain, in a clear manner, without understating the level of risk, the reasons for the field safety corrective action with reference to the device malfunction and associated risks for patients, users or other persons and shall clearly indicate all the actions to be taken by users. The manufacturer shall enter the field safety notice in the electronic system referred to in Article 87 through which that notice shall be accessible to the public. 9. The competent authorities shall actively participate in a procedure in order to coordinate their assessments referred to in paragraph 3 in the following cases: (a) where there is concern regarding a particular serious incident or cluster of serious incidents relating to the same device or type of device of the same manufacturer in more than one Member State; (b) where the appropriateness of a field safety corrective action that is proposed by a manufacturer in more than one Member State is in question. That coordinated procedure shall cover the following: — designation of a coordinating competent authority on a case by case basis, when required; — defining the coordinated assessment process, including the tasks and responsibilities of the coordinating competent authority and the involvement of other competent authorities. Unless otherwise agreed between the competent authorities, the coordinating competent authority shall be the competent authority of the Member State in which the manufacturer has its registered place of business. The coordinating competent authority shall, through the electronic system referred to in Article 87, inform the manufacturer, the other competent authorities and the Commission that it has assumed the role of coordinating authority. 10. The designation of a coordinating competent authority shall not affect the rights of the other competent authorities to perform their own assessment and to adopt measures in accordance with this Regulation in order to ensure the protection of public health and patient safety. The coordinating competent authority and the Commission shall be kept informed of the outcome of any such assessment and the adoption of any such measures. 11. The Commission shall provide administrative support to the coordinating competent authority in the accomplishment of its tasks under this Chapter.
Article 85 Analysis of vigilance data
The Commission shall, in collaboration with the Member States, put in place systems and processes to actively monitor the data available in the electronic system referred to in Article 87, in order to identify trends, patterns or signals in the data that may reveal new risks or safety concerns. Where a previously unknown risk is identified or the frequency of an anticipated risk significantly and adversely changes the benefit-risk determination, the competent authority or, where appropriate, the coordinating competent authority shall inform the manufacturer, or where applicable the authorised representative, which shall then take the necessary corrective actions.
Article 86 Implementing acts
The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, and after consultation of the MDCG, adopt the detailed arrangements and procedural aspects necessary for the implementation of Articles 80 to 85 and 87 as regards the following: (a) the typology of serious incidents and field safety corrective actions in relation to specific devices, or categories or groups of devices; (b) the reporting of serious incidents and field safety corrective actions and field safety notices, and the provision of periodic summary reports, post-market surveillance reports, PSURs and trend reports by manufacturers as referred to in Articles 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 respectively; (c) standard structured forms for electronic and non-electronic reporting, including a minimum data set for reporting of suspected serious incidents by healthcare professionals, users and patients; (d) timelines for the reporting of field safety corrective actions, and for the provision by manufacturers of periodic summary reports and trend reports, taking into account the severity of the incident to be reported as referred to in Article 82; (e) harmonised forms for the exchange of information between competent authorities as referred to in Article 84; (f) procedures for the designation of a coordinating competent authority; the coordinated evaluation process, including tasks and responsibilities of the coordinating competent authority and involvement of other competent authorities in this process. The implementing acts referred to in the first paragraph shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 107(3).
Article 87 Electronic system on vigilance and post-market surveillance
The Commission shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and manage an electronic system to collate and process the following information: reports by manufacturers on serious incidents and field safety corrective actions referred to in Article 82(1) and Article 84(5); (b) the periodic summary reports by manufacturers referred to in Article 82(9); (c) the reports by manufacturers on trends referred to in Article 83; (d) the PSURs referred to in Article 81; (e) the field safety notices by manufacturers referred to in Article 84(8); the information to be exchanged between the competent authorities of the Member States and between them and the Commission in accordance with Article 84(7) and (9). That electronic system shall include relevant links to the UDI database. 2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be made available through the electronic system to the competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission. The notified bodies shall also have access to that information to the extent that it relates to devices for which they issued a certificate in accordance with Article 49. 3. The Commission shall ensure that healthcare professionals and the public have appropriate levels of access to the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1. 4. On the basis of arrangements between the Commission and competent authorities of third countries or international organisations, the Commission may grant those competent authorities or international organisations access to the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 at the appropriate level. Those arrangements shall be based on reciprocity and make provision for confidentiality and data protection equivalent to those applicable in the Union. 5. The reports on serious incidents referred to in point (a) of Article 82(1), shall be automatically transmitted, upon receipt, via the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to the competent authority of the Member State in which the incident occurred. 6. The trend reports referred to in Article 83(1) shall be automatically transmitted upon receipt via the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the incidents occurred. The reports on field safety corrective actions referred to in point (b) of Article 82(1) shall be automatically transmitted upon receipt via the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to the competent authorities of the following Member States: (a) the Member State in which the field safety corrective action is being or is to be undertaken; (b) the Member State in which the manufacturer has its registered place of business. The periodic summary reports referred to in Article 82(9) shall be automatically transmitted upon receipt via the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to the competent authority of: (a) the Member State or Member States participating in the coordination procedure in accordance with Article 84(9) and which have agreed on the periodic summary report; 9. The information referred to in paragraphs 5 to 8 of this Article shall be automatically transmitted, upon receipt, through the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to the notified body that issued the certificate for the device in question in accordance with Article 51.
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 87 Electronic system on vigilance and post-market surveillance):
That electronic system shall include relevant links to the UDI database. 2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be made available through the electronic system to the competent authorities of the Member States and to the Commission. The notified bodies shall also have access to that information to the extent that it relates to devices for which they issued a certificate in accordance with Article 49. 3. The Commission shall ensure that healthcare professionals and the public have appropriate levels of access to the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1. 4. On the basis of arrangements between the Commission and competent authorities of third countries or international organisations, the Commission may grant those competent authorities or international organisations access to the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 at the appropriate level. Those arrangements shall be based on reciprocity and make provision for confidentiality and data protection equivalent to those applicable in the Union. 5. The reports on serious incidents referred to in point (a) of Article 82(1), shall be automatically transmitted, upon receipt, via the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to the competent authority of the Member State in which the incident occurred. 6. The trend reports referred to in Article 83(1) shall be automatically transmitted upon receipt via the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to the competent authorities of the Member States in which the incidents occurred. 9. The information referred to in paragraphs 5 to 8 of this Article shall be automatically transmitted, upon receipt, through the electronic system referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, to the notified body that issued the certificate for the device in question in accordance with Article 51.