Latest / DDReg Knowledge Capsule / Medical Device Registration in Kenya: Beyond Approval

Transcript

Medical Device Registration in Kenya: Beyond Approval · DDReg Knowledge Capsule

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome to the DD Reg Knowledge Capsule.
• 0:02
  Speaker 2: Thanks for having me back. Yeah.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: I'm really excited about this one because when we look
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: at global market entry strategies, you know, especially for med tech,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: there is this lingering tendency to view regulatory approval as a,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: like a static finish line.
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: The prevailing corporate narrative is often, you know, you finalize
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: the device design, compile your technical file, get a stamp
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: from a national authority, and then boom, you just hand
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: it over to supply chain logistics.
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: Which is, frankly, a remarkably dangerous way to approach international
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: trade today. I mean, treating market entry as a discrete transaction,
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: maybe that worked in less regulated eras. But modern frameworks
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: require an ongoing embedded operational strategy.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: You don't just ship a product and walk away. You
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: establish a continuous regulatory lifecycle. Exactly.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: And that operational reality is our mission for this deep dive.
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: We are examining a really comprehensive DD Reg Pharma guide
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: detailing how foreign manufacturers actually navigate medical device registration in Kenya.
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a fascinating market to look at.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: It really is. So whether you are directly managing global
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: regulatory affairs or maybe architecting medtech supply chains, or you're
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: just keenly interested in the actual mechanisms of international market access,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: We're going to reveal the hidden ongoing machinery required to
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: cross these borders. Yeah.
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: And to map this out, we really have to start
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: with the regulatory infrastructure itself.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Okay. Lay it out for us.
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: So in Kenya, the competent authority is the Pharmacy and
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: Poisons Board, or the PPB. And under their 2022 registration
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: of health products and technologies rules, the PPB actually consolidated
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: their oversight.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: Consolidated how?
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Well, they now manage the entire spectrum. So That encompasses
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: both standard medical devices and IVDs, in vitro diagnostics, within
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: this unified, heavily scrutinized framework. Okay.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Let's unpack this because before a company can even, you know,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: think about paperwork or start allocating a budget for a submission,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: they have to understand exactly what they are trying to
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: bring into the country in the eyes of the PPV. Right.
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: They have to run their product through the local classification matrix.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And I tend to view this mechanism a lot
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: like an airport security line based on risk profile.
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: Oh, that's a good way to look at it.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: Right. Because the system isn't designed to treat every single
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: passenger equally. It applies friction based purely on risk. Like
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: if I'm just carrying a non-sterile pack of cotton wool,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: putting me through a millimeter wave scanner and doing a
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: full background check is a massive misallocation of resources.
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: Exactly. A pack of cotton wool shouldn't get the same
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: pat down as a pacemaker. And that proportionality is really
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: the underlying philosophy of the PPB's four-level classification system.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: So they break it down into four tiers?
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, classes A through D. And the evidentiary burden scales
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: exponentially with each step. So class A represents the lowest
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: risk tier.
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: Like the cotton wool we just mentioned.
• 3:05
  Speaker 2: Right, cotton wool, standard bandages, maybe basic urine collection bottles.
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: Then moving to class B, you enter the low to
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: moderate risk space.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: Okay, what falls into that?
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: Things like tracheal tubes or standard urinary catheters. Then class
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: C elevates to moderate to high risk. This includes long-term
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: invasive devices, so urethral stents or continuous wear contact lenses.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: Got it. And then class D is the highest? Yes.
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: Class D captures the highest risk profile. We're talking implantable defibrillators, pacemakers,
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: critical neurological implants, the really heavy stuff.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: Okay, so the progression makes logical sense from a physiological standpoint.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: It's largely based on invasiveness, duration of contact, whether it
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: delivers energy or medicine. But wait, if a manufacturer gets
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: this classification wrong at the start, does it derail the
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: entire process?
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: It forces a complete restart.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: Just from picking the wrong class?
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because the technical documentation required to support a Class
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: C submission is structurally completely different from a Class B.
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: So if you misclassify, your submission doesn't just get paused.
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: It often gets outright rejected. Wow. You lose your queue position,
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: you forfeit your initial fees, and you have to re-architect
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: your entire submission strategy. It alters the required evidence, the
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: regulatory review time, everything.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: That is a harsh lesson to learn the hard way.
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: Definitely. But, you know, speaking of classification rules, the really
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: quirky part here, and I get a little too excited
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: about this as a regulatory nerd, is how they handle IVDs.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: Oh, right. Because the diagnostic side usually requires a slightly
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: different logic tree than physical implants, right?
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it requires a massive conceptual shift. With IVDs, the
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: PPB can't simply evaluate the physical interaction with the patient
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: because the device usually operates on a sample outside the body.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: Right, like a blood draw or a swab.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: Exactly. So instead, they classify based on cognitive and epidemiological risks.
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: They look at the expertise of the intended user.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: Oh, interesting. So like who is actually running the test?
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: Yes. Is this being run by a highly trained clinical
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: pathologist in a centralized lab? Or is it a rapid
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: self-test administered by a layman at home? Furthermore, they evaluate
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: the public health impact of an incorrect result.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: So a false negative on something serious. Exactly.
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: A false negative for a highly contagious infectious disease carries
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: a huge societal risk that fundamentally alters the device's classification
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: and pushing it right into the highest risk tiers.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: That makes total sense.
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: And here's the kicker for both standard devices and IVDs.
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: If a product falls under multiple classification rules, the highest
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: applicable risk class automatically wins out. It dictates the pathway.
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: No exceptions.
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: No exceptions. The highest risk always dictates the route.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: So that preliminary risk mapping really is a make or
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: break exercise. But OK, once a manufacturer locks in that classification,
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: they have to actually prove the device is safe.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: They face the submission phase.
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: That's right.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: And here's where it gets really interesting, because there is
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: this persistent structural trap that international companies fall into when
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: targeting emerging markets.
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: The assumption of global reciprocity.
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: Exactly. They assume that holding a U.S. FDA approval or
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: a European CE mark grants them the sort of regulatory
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: diplomatic immunity. They assume they can just instantly upload their
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: existing file, copy pasted into the local portal. and bypass
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: the rigorous review.
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the copy-paste dossier myth is probably the single biggest
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: driver of delayed market entries in Kenya.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Because the PPP won't accept it. Right.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: While international approvals are definitely critical leverage points, the PPP
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: does not accept raw, unmodified global data dumps. Manufacturers have
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: to map their existing evidence into the Common Submission Dossier Template,
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: the CSDT.
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: The CSDT. Yes.
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: The data actually has to speak the local regulatory language.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: You know, it reminds me of trying to integrate two
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: complex software systems using an API.
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: Oh, how so?
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Well, you might have perfectly clean, highly validated data on
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: your own server, but if you try to push that
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: data into a new system without formatting it to match
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: their specific JSON schema, the receiving system is just going
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: to throw a critical error.
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: That's a great analogy.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, the API doesn't care how good your
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: data is. It only cares that the syntax matches its
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: required architecture. So the CSDT acts as that required syntax.
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: That is a highly accurate way to look at it.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: The PPP reviewers need to know precisely where to locate
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: your risk management file, your preclinical data, your manufacturing info.
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: They don't want to hunt through a proprietary 10,000-page file
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: structure from the FDA. Right.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: They need it in their format.
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And integrated directly into this requirement is the necessity
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: of a quality management system. The PPP expects alignment with
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: ISO 13485-2016.
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: Okay, so standard QMS alignment.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: Yes, but your CSDT, your manufacturing controls, and your QMS
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: audits all have to present a completely unified, internally consistent narrative.
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: If your CSDT claims one process, but your ISO audit
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: report highlights a different scope.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: I'm guessing that's a problem.
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: It triggers a massive delay.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: But surely the PPB isn't running a completely, you know,
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: from scratch review for every single Class D device if
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: the FDA or the European authorities have already spent thousands
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: of hours validating the exact same engineering specs. That seems
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: incredibly inefficient.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: It is inefficient, which is why the PPB actually introduced
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: a 2025 reliance guideline.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: OK, what does that do?
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: It's a strategic mechanism that allows the PPB to leverage
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: regulatory decisions from regulators. recognized reference authorities. So if you
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: have an approval from an EU notified body or the FDA,
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: you can utilize this pathway to expedite the review process.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: But reliance is not the same as automatic reciprocity, right?
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: They aren't just rubber stamping the foreign certificate.
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: Far from it. The PPB keeps the final say. To
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: trigger that reliance pathway, the device submitted in Kenya must
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: be absolutely identical to the one approved by the reference authority.
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: Identical in what way?
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: Same manufacturing site, identical raw materials, same sterilization processes. If
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: you alter the device even slightly to meet an African
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: market need, say changing the packaging for extreme humidity, you
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: often break the conditions for reliance.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow. So you're back to square one.
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: You're back to the standard full review pathway, yes.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: That puts a huge burden on global configuration management. But
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: looking at the evidentiary requirements within that CSDT, How does
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the PPB approach the clinical data?
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is that the PPB views clinical evidence
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: as mandatory for all medical devices in Kenya.
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: Wait, all of them?
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: Completely irrespective of their risk class. It's not just a formality.
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Wait, do they really expect a foreign manufacturer to run
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: a brand new clinical trial in Nairobi for every single device?
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Even a Class A or B? I mean, an on-the-ground
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: clinical trial for a standard urinary catheter just to enter
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: the market? The ROI would never justify those trial costs.
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: No, and the PPB recognizes that economic reality, which is
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: why they heavily utilize the framework of clinical equivalence.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: Okay, so you don't need a new trial if you
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: can prove equivalence. Right.
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: You don't have to conduct de novo pre-market clinical investigations. Instead,
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: you can construct a rigorous scientific argument demonstrating your device
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: is equivalent to a predicate device that already has robust
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: clinical data.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: But... Proving equivalence isn't just a marketing exercise. You can't
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: just put two stents side by side on a desk
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: and say, hey, they look similar and perform the same
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: basic function.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: No, not at all. It requires a highly granular, reasoned, technical,
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: and biological comparison. Technically, you compare the algorithms, the deployment mechanisms,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: the tensile strength.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: And biologically?
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: You compare degradation profiles, exact polymer compositions. You have to
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: prove both devices are used for the identical clinical condition
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: in the same demographic, at the same site in the body.
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: It is a highly defensive, data-driven justification.
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: Okay, so the dossier is incredibly tailored and legally rigorous.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: But a perfectly tailored, Kenya-specific dossier is basically useless if
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: there's no one on the ground to legally hold it, right?
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, you can't navigate local laws from a boardroom
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: thousands of miles away in Boston or Munich.
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: This is one of the most critical operational hurdles. The
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: Kenyan framework strictly mandates the appointment of a local entity.
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: You have to operate through A local authorized representative, the LAR,
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: or a local technical representative, the LTR.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: I always think of this like needing a local attorney
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: in a foreign court.
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: That's a perfect comparison.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because you might understand your technical arguments perfectly, but
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: you lack standing in that specific court. You need a
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: proxy who speaks the language of the local judge, right?
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: Someone who has legal authority and is physically within their jurisdiction. Yes.
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: Strategically, selecting a local representative is a necessity, not just
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: an administrative box to check at the end of the process.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: When does it have to happen?
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: The LAR or LTR is mandatory before registration approval is
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: even granted. Companies that treat this as a last-minute detail
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: often find their entire launch derailed while they scramble to
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: vet a local partner.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: And given the access they have, this isn't just a
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: distributor taking a cut of the sales. The liability structure
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: must be intense.
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: Oh, the responsibilities are legally binding. They act as the
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: regulatory liaison. They maintain the technical documentation locally. More critically,
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: they manage the entire vigilance and safety apparatus.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: So if something goes wrong?
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: If a device malfunctions or if there's a global field
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: safety corrective action, like a software patch or a physical recall,
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: the LAR is legally responsible for executing that action within Kenya.
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: Handing over that level of control for post-market surveillance requires
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: immense trust. You're basically entrusting your global quality metrics to
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: an external contractor.
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: You are.
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: And what about traceability? Can a manufacturer just, you know,
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: hedge their bets by appointing five different distributors as simultaneous LARs,
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: like just to maximize market penetration?
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: They absolutely cannot. Crucially, the guidelines mandate that only one
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: local representative should be identified on the device labelings. and
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: the Declaration of Conformity. Just one? Yes, to maintain traceability.
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: If a batch of implants fails and you have multiple
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: uncoordinated distributors, the PPB wouldn't know who is legally compelled
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: to pull the devices from hospital inventories.
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: That would be a fragmented, chaotic response, which is basically
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: a catastrophic public health failure waiting to happen.
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: Precisely. That single point of accountability has to be consistent
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: across the physical label, the technical file, and the registration certificate.
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: Which brings us directly to the final phase. So let's
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: say the classification is right. The CSDT dossier is approved.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: The local representative is locked in. The registration certificate is issued.
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: The most dangerous assumption a company can make at that
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: exact moment is that the regulatory process is over.
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: It is a systemic illusion.
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Highlighting this was a massive takeaway from the source.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: Treating registration as the finish line. Because getting the certificate
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: does not mean the product can instantly cross the border.
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: So if you have the registration, why would your shipment
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: get stopped at Customs?
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: Because you face the Kenya National Trade Net system. Product
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: authorization and import controls are parallel, distinct mechanisms.
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: Okay, so what does Trade Net require?
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: Declared Customs, a specific PPB import permit is required for
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: each individual consignment.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Wait, really? For every single shipment?
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: Every single shipment. It's not a generalized annual allowance where
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: you just flash your certificate at the border. An import
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: permit has to be generated and approved every time a
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: container arrives at the port of Mombasa.
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: That completely redefines your supply chain velocity. If every box
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: acts as a mini regulatory gateway.
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The importer must align the pro forma invoices, the
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: batch numbers, everything with the master registration file. If there's
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: a typo between the invoice and the approved file, the
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: consignment is stalled.
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: Unbelievable.
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: And furthermore, the foundational registration certificate itself is ephemeral. They
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: generally are only valid for five years.
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: So you have to renew it.
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: Yes. And they mandate an annual retention process on top
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: of that. You have to actively validate your registration every
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: single year to maintain market authorization.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: It's basically paying ongoing regulatory rent.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: That's exactly what it is. And if we connect this
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: to the bigger picture, this shows that market entry is
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: an ongoing regulatory operating model. It's not one and done.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: Post-market surveillance, managing recalls, updating technical files for any changes
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: to the device, it's a permanent responsibility.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: Because the device evolves.
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: Constantly. If you swap a microchip, update firmware, or change
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: your manufacturing site, you have to formally assess that change
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: against your Kenyan approval. The regulatory file is never static.
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean? The core takeaway for you,
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: the listener, is that entering Kenya's medical device market requires
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: viewing the process as an interconnected life cycle.
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: Absolutely.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: It's risk classification, local representation, tailored CSDT dossiers, and post-market vigilance,
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: not a one-and-done transaction. If you are involved in bringing
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: life-saving technologies to new borders, understanding these interconnected layers is
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: quite literally the difference between an unboxing in a hospital
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: and a crate gathering dust in customs.
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: It's a high-stakes environment. And I think it leaves us
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: with a really important final thought to ponder.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: Let's hear it.
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: As countries like Kenya increasingly implement these reliance-based regulatory pathways,
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: pathways that respect international standards but still demand localized safety evidence,
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: could this create a domino effect?
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: Oh, that's an interesting point.
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: We have to wonder if this hybrid approach will soon
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: force global medtech companies to design their products and their
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: data-gathering strategies with the African continent in mind from day one.
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: Rather than just as an afterthought.
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Africa transitioning from a retroactive compliance headache into a
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: foundational driver of initial product design.
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: Wow. Designing with the Global South integrated from the very beginning.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: That is a massive paradigm shift and a perfect analytical
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: thread to end on. Thank you for joining us in
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: the D.D. Reg Knowledge Capsule. We will catch you on
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: the next deep dive.