Clinical Evaluation Updates: When Are They Really Required?
Many medical device manufacturers are familiar with the situation: the clinical evaluation is complete, the PMS process is running, the next submission or notified body surveillance is approaching, and suddenly the question arises: does the Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) really need to be updated now?
In practice, this question is often answered using fixed intervals: annually for Class III devices and implants, every two years for Class IIa and IIb devices, and every three to five years for Class I devices. This logic is widespread, but it falls short. A closer look at regulatory requirements reveals that the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of Medical Devices (MDR) does not specify a fixed update frequency for the clinical evaluation itself. This is where the real challenge begins.
Table of Contents
What the MDR actually requires
Article 61 of the Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR) requires that the clinical evaluation and its documentation be updated throughout the entire lifecycle of the device. Updates should be based on data obtained from Post-Martket Surveillance (PMS) and Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up (PMCF) activities.
Importantly, the MDR does not explicitly require annual updates of the Clinical Evaluation Plan (CEP) or Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). However, annual updates are required for certain related documents, such as the PMCF Evaluation Report and the SSCP for Class III and implantable devices. This often leads to the misconception that the entire clinical evaluation must also be updated annually.
For PMS documents, clear frequencies do exist: the PSUR must be updated annually for Class III and Class IIb devices, and at least every two years for Class IIa devices. While this does not automatically trigger a CER update, it does create pressure for consistency between PMS, PMCF, risk management, and the clinical evaluation.
Why a purely interval-based approach is not enough
A rigid update schedule may seem practical, it is predictable, easy to explain, and appears reasonable to notified bodies. However, it can be inefficient or even problematic.
If there have been no changes in the state of the art, benefit-risk profile, clinical data, claims, or product characteristics, a full CER update often results in unnecessary documentation effort without adding value.
Conversely, product developments, new intended uses, new risks, field safety notices, CAPAs, or relevant changes in the state of the art may require updates outside of planned intervals.
The key question is therefore not: “Has another year passed?” But rather: “Is there new information that affects the clinical evaluation, benefit-risk profile, or consistency of the technical documentation?”
We can help you.
Do you need help integrating different regulatory processes efficiently and ensuring consistency across your compliance system?
Meaningful Triggers for a Clinical Evaluation Update
In practice, update triggers can be grouped into three categories:
REGULATORY : These include requirements from MDR, PMS, PMCF, PSUR, and notified bodies. Especially important is the interface with PMS documentation: when new PMS or PMCF data become available, their impact on the clinical evaluation must be assessed.
RISK-BASED: An update may be required if the safety or performance profile changes, such as: new or changed risks; relevant incidents or vigilance data; CAPAs or field safety corrective actions, new findings from literature, registries, or studies; product developments, including relevant software changes; new or modified claims; changes in intended purpose; relevant changes in the state of the art.
For software products in particular, this assessment can be complex due to frequent updates. Not every change requires a full CER update, but each risk must be evaluated and documented regarding clinical impact.
SELF-DEFINED PROCESS: Many companies define internal update cycles. This is useful, provided they are not followed blindly. A good approach is to regularly assess whether a full update is needed—or whether a documented justification that the current evaluation remains valid is sufficient.
Consistency: the underestimated success factor
A key point often underestimated in practice: it is not just about whether the CER has been formally updated, it is about ensuring that the entire technical documentation remains consistent.
The clinical evaluation is closely interconnected and linked with other processes such as: PMS plan and report, PSUR, PMCF plan and evaluation report, risk management file, instructions for use, claims and marketing statements, SSCP, product description, change management.
Important: the Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP) does not trigger a clinical evaluation update. However, it must remain consistent with the clinical evaluation and underlying data. If new clinically relevant information requires updating the clinical evaluation, it must be checked whether the SSCP also needs adjustment.
If documents contain different data periods, statements, or conclusions, this creates a high risk of questions from notified bodies. It becomes even more critical if new PMS data are reflected in one document but not yet evaluated in the clinical evaluation.
Therefore, aligning CER updates with PMS and PMCF cycles is often advisable. Even better is harmonizing the underlying data periods—this may not always be required but significantly strengthens the defensibility of the documentation.
Who Should Manage the Update Process?
A Clinical Evaluation update is not solely the responsibility of Clinical Affairs. It requires a cross-functional approach, typically involving: Regulatory Affairs, Clinical Affairs / Medical Writing, Quality Management, PMS / PMCF specialists, Risk Management, R&D, Product Management, and potentially, the Marketing or Sales department for claims.
However, overall responsibility should be clearly assigned to Regulatory Affairs or the Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance (PRRC), particularly for planning, coordination, and tracking.
For companies with multiple products, a centralized update plan is essential. Updating everything at once can create resource bottlenecks and quality risks.
Practical Recommendation
Manufacturers should not only define update frequencies but establish a robust update concept addressing:- Regular review intervals
- Events triggering ad hoc evaluations
- When a documented no-update justification is sufficient
- When a full CER update is required
- How consistency with PMS, PMCF, and risk management is ensured
- Who decides on update necessity
- Who coordinates resources and timelines
The pragmatic approach: not every event requires a full CER update—but every potentially relevant event must be assessed and documented.
Conclusion
The MDR requires continuous updating of the clinical evaluation throughout the product lifecycle—but does not mandate fixed annual updates. Manufacturers should move away from rigid intervals and adopt a risk-based, process-driven, and consistency-focused approach. A strong update process not only prevents regulatory gaps, it reduces unnecessary workload, improves documentation quality, and facilitates smoother interactions with notified bodies.
Categories: Clinical Evaluation, Regulatory Affairs
Tags: MDR, Medical Devices, SSCP
Share this post:
NEWSLETTER
Subscribe to our newsletter and get access
to our free Compliance Compass.
READ MORE
RELATED TOPICS
- Clinical Evaluation
- Biological Evaluation
- State of the Art
- Regulatory Affairs
- News