Introduction: A Moment of Reckoning
Boston Scientific’s decision to discontinue global sales of its ACURATE neo2 and ACURATE Prime transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) systems marks a pivotal moment in medical device regulation. Despite obtaining CE Mark approval in Europe, these devices failed to demonstrate non-inferiority in two rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCT), leading to their withdrawal. This development prompts a critical examination of the European Union’s regulatory framework and its reliance on Notified Bodies (NBs) for medical device approvals. When innovation skips evidence and regulation skips rigor, it’s simply roulette with lives (not progress).
The ACURATE Valve’s Trajectory: A Case Study
The ACURATE neo2 valve received CE Mark approval in April 2020, facilitating its entry into the European market. However, subsequent clinical trials revealed significant shortcomings. A pivotal study published in The Lancet reported a composite rate of all-cause mortality, stroke, or rehospitalization at one year of 16.2% for the ACURATE neo2, compared to 9.5% for competitor devices. Further analysis identified that approximately 20% of the valves were under-expanded, correlating with increased rates of death and stroke.
If hindsight is 20/20, the CE Mark might need glasses because two failed RCTs still cleared customs.
European Regulatory Oversight: A System Under Scrutiny
The European Union’s (EU) Medical Device Regulation (EU-MDR) aims to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. However, the ACURATE case raises concerns about the effectiveness of the NB model. The CE Mark approval, granted despite the absence of robust RCT data, suggests potential gaps in the evaluation process. Moreover, the NB and expert panels (that have been in place since 2021), together failed to raise a red flag on the RCT data that has been widely discussed for a while now! Clearly, the reliance on NBs, which are for-profit private entities designated by EU member states, may lead to variability in assessment standards and potential conflicts of interest.
When your safety net is stitched by a dozen private firms with clipboards, don’t be surprised if patients fall through.
Contrasting with the U.S. FDA Approach
In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates stringent premarket approval (PMA) processes, requiring comprehensive clinical evidence. The ACURATE valve’s failure to meet FDA standards underscores the agency’s commitment to rigorous evaluation. While the FDA’s approach may be more time-consuming, it prioritizes patient safety and device effectiveness, potentially preventing the market entry of suboptimal devices.
It may be slow, but the FDA doesn’t trade due diligence for early access and that’s the price of trust.
Boston Scientific’s Decision: A Model of Corporate Responsibility
Boston Scientific’s choice to withdraw the ACURATE valves globally, despite their commercial availability in Europe, exemplifies corporate responsibility. Acknowledging the devices’ clinical shortcomings and the increased regulatory requirements, the company opted to cease sales rather than compromise patient safety. This decision reflects a commitment to ethical standards and patient welfare.
In a world of spin, BSC chose spine; kudos for walking away before patients had to.
Conclusion: Lessons for Regulatory Reform
The ACURATE valve’s journey from European approval to global withdrawal highlights the need for regulatory introspection. The EU must evaluate the efficacy of the NB model and consider reforms to enhance the robustness of device assessments. Aligning more closely with FDA standards and requirements could improve patient outcomes and restore confidence in European regulatory processes. Boston Scientific’s transparency and decisive action set a commendable precedent, emphasizing that patient safety should remain paramount in medical device regulation.
If the CE Mark can greenlight what the FDA red flags, maybe it’s time to ask whether Brussels is confusing certification with sanctification.
Contact Us
Ready to take a more evidence-driven, globally aligned approach to regulatory strategy? Let’s talk. RQM+ helps MedTech innovators make smarter go-to-market decisions, navigate regulatory complexity, and ensure their products reach the right patients safely and successfully.
