Company update

Team profile: Stephanie Mattsson

By | Business Development, Company update | No Comments

Our now Associate Stephanie Mattsson joined us in January and has quickly convinced us that she’s a keeper. With her curiosity and can-do attitude, she never fails to inspire the rest of us. Thanks to her previous industry experience and relentless energy in solving client problems through different projects, we asked her to introduce herself and tell more about her journey to MSC.

My name is Stephanie Mattsson, and I’m a new member of the MSC team since January. I joined as an Associate after the CEO Tobias contacted me about the position. I first came in contact with MSC during my master’s studies in Business Development and Entrepreneurship through a student lead consultancy organization, which I chaired, where we were tasked with a project for MSC. After completing an internship in venture capital, the position at MSC felt like a good opportunity to gain experience in the life science industry as well as gaining valuable experience from the field of management consulting.

During my B.Sc. in Chemistry, I felt like I was missing out on understanding the bigger picture even though I enjoyed the science. I realized that I wanted to become more business oriented. I, therefore, applied for an M.Sc. in Business Development and Entrepreneurship at Chalmers University of Technology. I got accepted and enrolled in the track focused on Intellectual Capital Management. I haven’t come to regret my decision to become more business focused one bit. It opened up opportunities for me to work with start-ups in many different industries, big companies like Ericsson, and traveling abroad to work for companies like Xerox and PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). Together with a solid education, those experiences made it possible for me start my career in the cross section between technology and business in venture capital at Industrifonden. Now, I’m enjoying the experience I gain in the cross section between life science and business in my position at MSC.

I like my position at MSC since I thrive on challenging myself, whether that’s in taking a job outside my comfort zone or signing up for a half marathon. Now I get the intellectual challenge from interesting projects at work and, in my spare time, from interests such as training Thai boxing and dining out with friends.

“I think that the intersection between science and business is a place where I can make a difference for society by being a part of enabling new technology and pharmaceuticals available to the public.”

I have a lot to learn about processes in life science and about management consulting in general and, here at MSC, I feel that I can grow within a team full of energy and expertise. What I enjoy most about MSC so far is working with smart, knowledgeable, and open-minded people as well as working with companies that are in a stage of development where our services can make a huge impact. At the end of the day, I think that the intersection between science and business is a place where I can make a difference for society by being a part of enabling new technology and pharmaceuticals available to the public. By working for MSC, I contribute to society, develop as a professional, and at the same time, enjoy my everyday life with family, friends, and colleagues. What more can I ask for?


Stephanie Mattsson
Associate at MSC

What’s up with the European medical device regulatory (MDR) overhaul?

By | Business Development, Company update | No Comments

As a medical device company, you have surely already prepared for the upcoming date of application for the new European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR) on May 26, 2020. On the surface, it might seem like just another regulatory overhaul. It is, however, both a reaction to some significant flaws in the medical device product life cycle, as well as an opportunity provider for businesses to improve efficiency and product quality. Ultimately, the aim is vastly improved patient outcomes. We were curious to paint a picture of the factors driving these changes and discuss the future of the medical device industry as a result of these new regulations.

MDR is essentially a merge between the Active Implantable Medical Device (AIMD) directive and the Medical Devices Directive (MDD), while the new In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) is an update of the In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Directive (IVDD). The new medical device regulation (MDR) will begin its reign on May 26, 2020, but companies that have been issued an EU declaration of conformity (EC) before this date of application will be able to sell or distribute devices that were certified under the previous the MDD or IVD. IVDR, which focuses on in vitro diagnostics, has many similar implications to MDR as well as several compliance deadlines that coincide.

Key timeline by the Regulatory and Clinical Research Institute

The changes in the new regulation will affect different actors in different magnitudes, but one certainty is that as a medical device company (no matter what part of the value chain), these changes cannot be ignored.

The purpose of MDR

The purpose of the new regulations is to improve directive harmonization, improve user and patient safety, improve product traceability, quality assurance, and transparency, as well as to provide fair market access for manufacturers. These new regulations have several exciting implications for supporting markets. Companies should, however, look to their trusted legal expertise for more information about the nitty-gritty details.

The catalyzers of MDR

There have been quite a few large medical device scandals that were implied to be the catalyzers for these European medical device regulatory changes. One of the main issues lying at the core of these scandals is the sale and distribution of counterfeit products that have made their way into the supply chain of medical devices, either as a replacement of the entire authentic device or its constituents. In general, it is estimated that 8-10% of all medical devices are of fake origin. This ties into suboptimal traceability, which is one of the key changes that MDR will address through the introduction of Unique Device Identification (UDI). UDI will hopefully also have a positive effect on recall costs, which can be as high as $600 million for a single product, not including the expensive lawsuits that might follow.

Breast implant scandal
One of the more significant cases credited to have been a part of triggering the initiative towards tighter medical device regulations is a breast implant scandal that caught the attention of regulatory authorities. Company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP), a French company launched in 1991, produced approximately two million sets of silicone breast implants over the course of 20 years. The problem began when the company started producing implants made from cheaper industrial-grade silicone that was not approved for medical use. These implants were rupturing at a rate double that of the industry average, causing dire patient consequences. In 2011, the French government recommended that 30,000 women with PIP implants get them removed, and in 2013 the founder of the company was sent to prison for four years in addition to receiving a lifetime ban from working within the medical device sector.

Vaginal mesh device
Another medical device scandal with tragic consequences involved a vaginal mesh device, which was first introduced in the 1990s and used for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), two common complications after childbirth. The vaginal mesh led to complications that have severely altered women’s lives, including nerve damage, chronic pain, and several reported deaths. Researchers currently estimate that these issues occurred in between 15­–25% of patients with the device. The implants were formally introduced in the US in 1996 for SUI and 2002 for POP, but the first FDA warnings got issued in 2008. Since then, several lawsuits have taken place in the US, Australia, and New Zealand. In 2017, it was revealed that the mesh manufacturers had failed to adequately warn UK doctors of the risks associated with the mesh and had inadequately tested the kits before selling them. A year later, it turned out a supplier had used untested counterfeit plastic in its mesh products.

Final thoughts

The new regulations might seem straight forward and targeted towards certain company functions at a glance, but the entire holistic operations of medical device companies will need to change. Cross-functional teams will need to share even more information than ever before. Every product, whether new or old, will be looked at as a brand-new device.

As discussed in an interview with Caroline Byrd, a Director of Regulatory Affairs at Abbot, companies might need to revise their entire strategy and think about factors like design improvement needs, post-market surveillance activities, and the management of the product life cycle from the very beginning of the product development phase. Thus, there is a very realistic chance that the operations of a medical device company need to change holistically for survival.

We want to think that we can predict the industry impact of these new regulations, but the fact remains that it is impossible to foresee all of the implications such an extensive regulatory overhaul. It would, however, be naïve to say these changes won’t bring upon us novel business opportunities.


By: Robert Ljungberg, Associate at MSC