Client login Discuss your program

Home / Regulatory and quality / Regulatory Affairs and Strategy

Regulatory Affairs and Strategy · EU MDR 2017/745

EU MDR regulatory consulting and strategy for medical devices

Eclevar settles the conformity assessment route, identifies the gaps that generate Notified Body questions, and builds a regulatory argument the technical documentation can carry. When the gap is evidence rather than wording, the same organization runs the clinical program that closes it.

Book an EU MDR strategy call Request a regulatory gap assessment
  • Former Notified Body experience
  • Class IIa, IIb and III devices
  • MDR 2017/745 conformity assessment
  • Regulatory and clinical evidence in one team
  • Notified Body question and NCR response
Why manufacturers choose Eclevar

Regulatory advice from a team that also runs the studies

Most regulatory consultancies stop at the recommendation. When an Eclevar assessment concludes that the clinical evidence will not support the intended purpose, the same organization can design, file and run the study that closes the gap.

2,000+participants across the current clinical portfolio
30+clinical programs delivered for device manufacturers
6countries where Eclevar prepares and files authority and ethics submissions in house
Regulatory and clinical executionOne team from evidence strategy through clinical delivery

These figures describe clinical delivery, not conformity assessment outcomes, which are decided by Notified Bodies. Read the client success stories.

The commercial problem

Where EU MDR submissions start to break down

An unsettled pathway produces documentation gaps. Gaps produce questions. Questions produce requests for additional evidence, and that is what moves a European launch by quarters rather than weeks.

The failure is rarely one bad document. Files are assembled by different teams at different times: risk from engineering, clinical evaluation from a contract writer, post-market documentation from quality, labeling from marketing. Each part can be defensible alone and still contradict the others.

An assessor reads across those parts, and the questions that cost most expose a disagreement between documents, not a gap inside one.

Inconsistencies that generate questions

  • An intended purpose broader in the instructions for use than in the clinical evaluation
  • Clinical claims in labeling and marketing that the clinical data does not support
  • Risks accepted on the strength of a benefit the evidence does not demonstrate
  • Equivalence built on a device the manufacturer cannot show sufficient access to
  • PMS and PMCF documentation that ignores the clinical evaluation's residual uncertainties

A technical file is judged as one argument. Every document in it is either evidence for that argument or a contradiction inside it.

Discuss your regulatory challenge
The 2026 picture

Three developments that should shape a submission plan

Regulatory strategy is planned against the framework in force, not the framework under discussion.

Four EUDAMED modules became mandatory on 28 May 2026

Actor Registration, UDI and Devices, Notified Bodies and Certificates, and Market Surveillance, following Commission Decision (EU) 2025/2371 and the gradual roll-out of Regulation (EU) 2024/1860. The Vigilance and Post-Market Surveillance module remains in development, while the Clinical Investigations and Performance Studies module is currently under analysis. EUDAMED registration and device-data readiness are now operational regulatory requirements to incorporate into EU market-access planning.

New Notified Body timeline rules are coming in 2027

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/977 was adopted on 4 May 2026 and applies from 25 February 2027. Under Article 8(1), Articles 1 to 3 do not apply to conformity assessment procedures for which the Notified Body and manufacturer signed a written agreement before 25 February 2027. Other provisions of the Regulation have their own application and transitional dates. The framework makes application completeness and evidence coherence increasingly important: the 30-day application review and contract signature period starts on the day the Notified Body receives the complete application, while conformity assessment timelines may be interrupted where a manufacturer needs to address non-compliances, or duly justified questions and requests necessary for the assessment.

The revision proposal is a proposal, not law

The Commission published its proposal to revise the MDR and IVDR on 16 December 2025. It is in the ordinary legislative procedure and can change. MDR 2017/745 and the transitional deadlines of Regulation (EU) 2023/607 continue to apply, and a submission plan built on an anticipated simplification is an exposed plan.

Sources: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/977 and the European Commission EUDAMED pages. Stated as of August 2026. Not legal advice.

Scope of support

EU MDR regulatory affairs services, from pathway to Notified Body review

Each engagement starts from a decision the manufacturer has to make, not a list of deliverables.

Pathway, classification and intended purpose

When classification is contested or the intended purpose was written to keep options open, Eclevar fixes the purpose first, then tests the classification rules and the conformity assessment route against it, including Rule 11 for software. Output: a defensible pathway and a claim set to build the file around.

EU MDR gap assessment

When no one can say whether the file is submittable, Eclevar reviews technical documentation, clinical evaluation, risk and post-market documentation together, then separates gaps that can affect conformity assessment from housekeeping. Output: a prioritized remediation plan, one owner and a sequence per item.

Evidence architecture and GSPR traceability

When every GSPR is marked as met but the referenced documents do not hold the evidence, Eclevar rebuilds traceability from claim to requirement to document to data. Output: an Annex I mapping an assessor follows unaided.

Clinical evidence strategy

When the clinical evaluation may not carry the intended purpose, Eclevar assesses sufficiency against Annex XIV and the applicable MDCG guidance and tests any equivalence argument. Output: a written position on sufficiency and the options that follow.

PMS, PMCF and lifecycle strategy

When post-market documentation ignores the uncertainties the clinical evaluation raised, Eclevar aligns the PMS plan, PMCF plan and evaluation report with those residual questions. Output: a lifecycle plan that survives the next update cycle.

Notified Body questions and NCR response

When questions or non-conformities arrive and the response deadline is running, Eclevar reads what is actually being asked, separates evidence problems from drafting problems, and structures a response that closes the point rather than restating the file. Output: a response package and a position on anything needing new data.

Also covered at strategy level

  • Legacy device transition under Regulation (EU) 2023/607
  • Portfolio remediation and Annex II file structure
  • EUDAMED and UDI readiness
  • State of the art and benefit-risk argumentation
  • Regulatory due diligence and Notified Body selection
Request an MDR gap assessment
Trigger situations

When manufacturers bring Eclevar in

Almost every engagement starts from one of these sentences. If one is yours, the first conversation is a scoping conversation, not a pitch.

  • "We are preparing a Class IIb or Class III submission and want an independent assessment before the Notified Body sees it."
  • "Our Notified Body has challenged our clinical evidence and we need a position, not a rewrite."
  • "We do not know whether our current evidence is enough or whether another clinical investigation is required."
  • "Our CER, PMCF and risk documentation were created by different teams and are no longer aligned."
  • "We received a major deficiency and need a defensible response strategy."
  • "We are a US or Asian manufacturer planning European market entry."
How an engagement runs

Five stages, and a decision point at the end of each one

You can stop after any stage. Most manufacturers start with the first two and decide on execution once the gaps are priced.

  1. Regulatory diagnosis

    Intended purpose, classification, technical documentation, clinical evidence, risk and post-market documentation are reviewed together, against the device as labeled and sold.

  2. Gap and risk prioritization

    Findings are separated into what can materially affect conformity assessment, what will generate an avoidable question, and what is hygiene. Each gap gets an owner, an estimate and a sequence.

  3. Evidence architecture

    Claims, GSPRs, risk controls, clinical evaluation conclusions and post-market questions are mapped onto one another, so one change to the intended purpose propagates to every dependent document.

  4. Remediation and execution

    Documents are drafted or revised, and where the gap is evidence rather than wording, the study that closes it is designed and run by the same organization.

  5. Notified Body support

    The submission team is prepared for the questions the file invites, responses are structured and argued, and remediation is tracked through the review cycle. The assessment decision belongs to the Notified Body.

Strategy against document production

A regulatory strategy is more than a compliant technical file

Each document can be well written and the file can still fail to make one argument. That is the difference between a writing supplier and a strategist.

Figure 1. The EU MDR evidence chain

  1. Intended purposeWhat the device is for, for whom, in what condition
  2. Clinical claimsWhat is asserted in labeling, IFU and marketing
  3. Clinical evidenceData, appraisal, state of the art, benefit-risk conclusion
  4. Risk managementRisks, controls and the benefit accepted against them
  5. PMS and PMCFThe residual questions the file leaves open
  6. Technical documentationAnnex II and III, GSPR traceability, one file
  7. Notified Body reviewRead across all of the above
Every link is a dependency. Change the intended purpose and the claims, the clinical evidence, the risk file and the post-market plan move with it.

Most remediation Eclevar is asked to do is a reconciliation problem, not a rewriting problem: three documents that were each correct when written, and that now describe three slightly different devices.

Working the chain in reverse is what makes a strategy commercial. If a claim is worth keeping, the evidence has to be generated. If not, removing it is cheaper than defending it.

What Eclevar aligns in one pass

  • One intended purpose, used identically in every document
  • One claim set, each claim traced to its data
  • One benefit-risk position, shared by risk and clinical evaluation
  • One GSPR matrix pointing at documents that hold the evidence
The differentiator

When the gap is evidence, not documentation

Eclevar does not only identify regulatory evidence gaps. When additional evidence is required, Eclevar can design and execute the clinical program needed to close them.

Figure 2. From regulatory gap to regulatory evidence package

  1. Regulatory gapThe claim the current evidence cannot carry
  2. Evidence requirementWhat has to be shown, and to what standard
  3. Evidence modelPMCF study, registry or real-world data, equivalence, or clinical investigation
  4. Clinical executionSubmissions, sites, monitoring, data management
  5. Regulatory evidence packageResults written back into the clinical evaluation and technical file
A pure regulatory consultancy stops at the second step and hands the rest to a third party.

When an assessment concludes that the existing data cannot carry the intended purpose, the useful question is not what is missing. It is which evidence model answers it at acceptable cost, and how long it takes to produce a usable result.

Before you submit

Prepare for Notified Body scrutiny before submission

A readiness review is a rehearsal of the assessment: deliberately adversarial, and cheaper than the same finding arriving with a deadline attached. Bringing in a Notified Body deficiency response consultant before submission is what turns a list of findings into a plan with dates against it.

  • Pre-submission review against Annex II and Annex III
  • Consistency across intended purpose, claims, risk and clinical evaluation
  • Traceability test: can each GSPR statement be followed to its evidence
  • Clinical evidence challenge, argued from the assessor's side
  • Application completeness review before the clock starts
  • Question-response strategy and a rehearsal of the likely questioning
  • Non-conformity remediation planning, including what needs new data
  • Preparation of the team that will face the technical discussion

Eclevar prepares manufacturers for scrutiny and helps organize the evidence an assessor is likely to sample. It does not act for a Notified Body, cannot influence a conformity assessment decision, and does not predict what an assessor will ask.

Request a Notified Body readiness review
Who sets the strategy

Judgment from both sides of the file, from a medical device regulatory affairs consultant who has sat on the review side

Experience reviewing clinical and technical evidence from the conformity assessment side helps Eclevar identify inconsistencies and evidence weaknesses before they become repeated Notified Body questions.

Dr Mark Da Costa, Chief Operating Officer at Eclevar MedTech

Dr Mark Da Costa

COO, Eclevar MedTech · Former TUV SUD Notified Body experience · Consultant Cardiac Surgeon

More than 400 device files assessed from the conformity assessment side, with extensive cardiovascular medical device expertise. Sets the Eclevar position on evidence sufficiency, benefit-risk argumentation and question response.

Dr Nikhil Khadabadi, Chief Medical Officer for Orthopedics and Spine at Eclevar MedTech

Dr Nikhil Khadabadi

CMO, Orthopedics and Spine · Former TUV SUD Notified Body experience · Practicing orthopedic surgeon, NHS

Brings the clinical reading of a file: whether the claimed benefit is one a surgeon would recognize, and whether the endpoints would persuade the clinicians who adopt the device.

Former positions are stated for biographical context only. Eclevar is independent and is not affiliated with, appointed by or endorsed by any Notified Body. Meet the leadership team.

Selected programs

What the work looks like in practice

Class III neuromodulation implant Neuromodulation · Regulatory and clinical evidence strategy · Europe Client not named

Anticipating the questions a high-risk file was going to attract

Client situation

A Class III implantable device approaching conformity assessment, with clinical evidence and post-market planning developed separately from the technical file.

Eclevar intervention

Eclevar read the file from the assessor's perspective, identified the points most likely to be challenged, and built the clinical and PMCF strategy behind the submission.

Verified outcome

None published. The conformity assessment result is the Notified Body's decision, not Eclevar's to report.

Capabilities

Regulatory strategy · Clinical evidence · PMCF · Evidence architecture

Confidential engagement. Client, device and program details are withheld. No assessment outcome, certificate or acceptance is claimed or implied.

RegenLab Chronic wounds · PMCF program · 5 EU countries Ongoing program

Turning a post-market evidence requirement into an operating program

Client situation

Post-market clinical follow-up was required across two indications, diabetic foot ulcer and venous leg ulcer, where the standard of care varies by country.

Eclevar intervention

A randomized PMCF study of 160 participants, 14 sites, five European countries, to ISO 14155, with submissions prepared in house.

Intended evidence output

Evidence intended to support EU MDR clinical evaluation and PMCF across both indications, under one design.

Capabilities

Clinical evidence · PMCF · Clinical operations · Data management

Program ongoing. Client name used with permission. No result or regulatory outcome is claimed. Full story and client testimonial.

Entering Europe

Bringing a medical device into the European market

For a US, Japanese or other international manufacturer, the first EU MDR question is what your existing evidence is worth here.

Figure 3. How existing market evidence is assessed for Europe

  1. Existing evidenceFDA, PMDA or other market submissions, trial and post-market data
  2. Translation assessmentIntended purpose, claims and data appraised against EU MDR requirements
  3. Gap and evidence planWhat transfers, what needs supplementing, what needs generating
  4. European routeClassification, conformity assessment route, Notified Body application
Clearance or approval in another market is not a substitute for EU MDR conformity. Existing data can be highly relevant, but it is appraised against a different intended purpose framework and different clinical evaluation expectations.

Data generated for a US submission is usually usable, but rarely in the shape it arrives in. The intended purpose may be written for a different labeling regime, the comparator may not reflect the European standard of care, and the endpoints may not answer the question the clinical evaluation must close.

Practical questions follow: who acts as authorized representative, how the quality system is aligned, what EUDAMED registration requires, and whether the launch needs its own evidence. Eclevar files in house across six European countries, so plans are scoped against real timelines.

Discuss your EU market-entry strategy
Questions

EU MDR regulatory consulting, answered

What does an EU MDR regulatory consultant do?

The useful version of the role is deciding, not drafting: settling the intended purpose and classification, choosing the conformity assessment route, judging whether the clinical evidence can carry the claims, and sequencing the work so documents are written once against a fixed argument. Document production follows that decision, it does not replace it.

When should we conduct an MDR gap assessment?

Before you commit to a submission date, and before a Notified Body sees the file. Also when a device changes, a portfolio is acquired, a clinical evaluation is due for update, or previous submissions generated repeated questions. Running one after a non-conformity arrives still helps, but the options are narrower.

Can Eclevar review documentation before Notified Body submission?

Yes. A pre-submission readiness review reads the file the way an assessor reads it, across documents rather than inside one, and reports what is inconsistent, unsupported or untraceable. You receive a prioritized findings list. Line-by-line technical file review sits on the EU MDR technical review page.

Can Eclevar help respond to Notified Body deficiencies or NCRs?

Eclevar builds the response strategy and drafts the package with your team, starting from what is actually being asked: a question about a clinical evaluation conclusion and one about its traceability need very different answers. Where the answer requires evidence that does not exist yet, that is said plainly, with the options.

How do we determine whether existing clinical evidence is sufficient?

Sufficiency is judged against the intended purpose and the claims, not in the abstract. Eclevar appraises the clinical data against Annex XIV and the applicable MDCG guidance, tests any equivalence argument, and checks whether the benefit-risk conclusion rests on data rather than assertion. Output: a written position and the evidence options that follow.

Can US clinical data support an EU MDR submission?

Often yes, in part, and never automatically. FDA clearance or approval does not establish EU MDR conformity. The data is appraised against the European intended purpose, the European standard of care and the clinical evaluation expectations of the MDR, which usually means restructuring the argument and sometimes supplementing the data set rather than repeating the study.

Can Eclevar execute the clinical study or PMCF program required to close an evidence gap?

Yes, and it is the reason most sponsors choose Eclevar over a pure regulatory consultancy. Feasibility, site selection, submissions, monitoring, data management, biostatistics and medical writing are in house, so the study answering a regulatory question is run by the people who framed it.

Next step

Talk to an EU MDR consultant

Send us your device class, current regulatory status and main regulatory challenge. We will determine the appropriate review and the recommended next step, including what it would cover and what it would not.

Book an EU MDR strategy call See client success stories

Reforming Clinical Evaluation of Medical Devices in Europe