Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review

• Published in: Pediatric research Vol. 95; no. 3; pp. 615 - 624
• Main Authors: Guerlich, Kathrin, Patro-Golab, Bernadeta, Dworakowski, Paulina, Fraser, Alan G, Kammermeier, Michael, Melvin, Tom, Koletzko, Berthold
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Nature Publishing Group 01.02.2024; Nature Publishing Group US
• Subjects: Adolescent; Babies; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical outcomes; Clinical trials; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diabetes; Equipment and Supplies; Europe; Humans; Infant; Medical equipment; North America; Orthopedics; Pediatrics; Surgery; Systematic Review; North America; Europe
• ISSN: 0031-3998; 1530-0447
• DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02819-4

Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children. Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022. From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety. Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children. In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.