Objectives: The principal motivation for regulating medical devices is to protect patients and users. Complying with regulations may result in an increase in development, manufacturing and service costs for medical companies and ultimately for healthcare providers and patients, limiting the access to adequate medical equipment. On the other hand, poor regulatory control has resulted in the use of substandard devices. This study aims at comparing the certification route that manufactures have to respect for marketing a medical device in some African Countries and in European Union. Methods: We examined and compared the current and future regulations on medical devices in the European Union and in some countries in Africa. Contextually we proposed future approaches to open design strategies supported by emerging technologies as a means to enhance economically sustainable healthcare system driven by innovation. Results: African medical device regulations have an affinity to European directives, despite the fact that the latter are particularly strict. Several states have also implemented or harmonized directives to medical device regulation, or have expressed interest in establishing them in their legislation. Open Source Medical Devices hold a great promise to reduce costs but do need a high level of supervision, to control their quality and to guarantee their respect for safety standards. Conclusion: Harmonization across the two continents could be leveraged to optimize the costs of device manufacture and sale. Regulated open design strategies can enhance economically sustainable innovation.

Safe innovation: On medical device legislation in Europe and Africa

De Maria, Carmelo
Primo
;
Di Pietro, Licia;Ahluwalia, Arti
Ultimo
2018-01-01

Abstract

Objectives: The principal motivation for regulating medical devices is to protect patients and users. Complying with regulations may result in an increase in development, manufacturing and service costs for medical companies and ultimately for healthcare providers and patients, limiting the access to adequate medical equipment. On the other hand, poor regulatory control has resulted in the use of substandard devices. This study aims at comparing the certification route that manufactures have to respect for marketing a medical device in some African Countries and in European Union. Methods: We examined and compared the current and future regulations on medical devices in the European Union and in some countries in Africa. Contextually we proposed future approaches to open design strategies supported by emerging technologies as a means to enhance economically sustainable healthcare system driven by innovation. Results: African medical device regulations have an affinity to European directives, despite the fact that the latter are particularly strict. Several states have also implemented or harmonized directives to medical device regulation, or have expressed interest in establishing them in their legislation. Open Source Medical Devices hold a great promise to reduce costs but do need a high level of supervision, to control their quality and to guarantee their respect for safety standards. Conclusion: Harmonization across the two continents could be leveraged to optimize the costs of device manufacture and sale. Regulated open design strategies can enhance economically sustainable innovation.
2018
De Maria, Carmelo; Di Pietro, Licia; Díaz Lantada, Andrés; Madete, June; Makobore, Philippa Ngaju; Mridha, Mannan; Ravizza, Alice; Torop, Janno; Ahluwalia, Arti
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Safe innovation.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione finale editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.47 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.47 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/910594
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 41
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 25
social impact