Abstract
Novel bioelectronic medical devices that target neural control of visceral organs (e.g., liver, gut, spleen) or inflammatory reflex pathways are innovative class III medical devices like implantable cardiac pacemakers that are lifesaving and life-sustaining medical devices. Bringing innovative neurotechnologies early into the market and the hands of treatment providers would benefit a large population of patients inflicted with autonomic and chronic immune disorders. Medical device manufacturers and software developers widely use the Waterfall methodology to implement design controls through verification and validation. In the Waterfall methodology, after identifying user needs, a functional unit is fabricated following the verification loop (design, build, and verify) and then validated against user needs. Considerable time can lapse in building, verifying, and validating the product because this methodology has limitations for adjusting to unanticipated changes. The time lost in device development can cause significant delays in final production, increase costs, and may even result in the abandonment of the device development. Software developers have successfully implemented an Agile methodology that overcomes these limitations in developing medical software. However, Agile methodology is not routinely used to develop medical devices with implantable hardware because of the increased regulatory burden of the need to conduct animal and human studies. Here, we provide the pros and cons of the Waterfall methodology and make a case for adopting the Agile methodology in developing medical devices with physical components. We utilize a peripheral nerve interface as an example device to illustrate the use of the Agile approach to develop neurotechnologies.