The new In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) aims to harmonise regulatory framework across the European Union (EU) to ensure the safety and performance of devices by placing greater responsibility on manufacturers to demonstrate that their products meet stringent requirements.
For example, under these new directives, manufacturers must ensure proper technical documentation, conformity assessments, quality management requirements and post-market surveillance. Moreover, many in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) have been reclassified under IVDR, creating a need for manufacturers to perform clinical testing on devices that previously may not have required it. To perform clinical testing and generate clinical evidence needed for regulatory approval, most manufacturers will have to develop the ability to collect this data.
Although the deadline of May 2022 is rapidly approaching, the IVD industry has been slow to make progress towards meeting the elevated regulatory requirements presented by IVDR. This is due to the added expectations for clinical evidence and a greater scrutiny of data, in addition to the requirements for Unique Device Identification (UDI) to improve traceability of devices. Failure to meet these requirements by the deadline may have a profound impact on market access to certain products, and ultimately, patient outcomes. As such, knowing how much clinical evidence is needed for regulatory approval will be critical in terms of cost and time efficiency as manufacturers adjust to IVDR.
Understanding increased clinical evidence requirements
Because of the reclassification of IVDs under IVDR, different device categories now require different levels of documentation. Due to a perception that there is still a lot of time to transition, some manufacturers are underestimating the amount of clinical evidence required to gain approval. Additionally, with no grandfathering in place for previously certified devices, each device will need to be re-assessed based on their new classification, and manufacturers will need to determine how relevant currently available data is for devices already on the market. With this in mind, manufacturers should review and prioritise their device portfolios to determine next steps as early as possible.
To aid in adjusting to the reclassification of devices under IVDR, the European Commission’s Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) published a guidance to define the requirements of sampling for Class B and Class C devices under the new regulations. The guidance elaborates on sampling criteria, including strategies for developing and maintaining a sampling plan.1 Moreover, under IVDR nearly all manufacturers will need to engage the services of a notified body (NB), so this guidance also clarifies what tasks need to be performed by NBs when assessing documentation. To ensure sufficient data is available to be compliant with IVDR, manufacturers may benefit from consulting with the MDCG working group on Clinical Investigation and Evaluation.
Maintaining performance evaluation reports
In addition to ensuring that enough clinical evidence has been collected and reviewed by the deadline, each device will require a performance evaluation report, which will need to be continually updated. This report should demonstrate three areas: scientific validity, analytical performance and clinical performance. To complete this, manufacturers must assess how much data is available within each of these categories, and then determine how much activity is needed to fill the gaps, as well as what new data will need to be generated. Questions for manufacturers to ask themselves while completing these reports may include:2
- How much research has been conducted regarding the intended purpose of this device?
- What were the results of proof-of-concept studies?
- How much recorded evidence exists, and how robust is the data?
- What (if any) clinical performance tests have been performed to prove the device is safe?
IVD manufacturers that have already begun these assessments will be well-prepared to keep existing products on the market, promote new products and gain market share.
Addressing challenges of IVDR
Although larger manufacturers may have a team of in-house experts, many manufacturers may lack the IVD regulatory expertise required to ensure compliance to the IVDR requirements and could benefit from the support of an external CRO partner.
ICON’s dedicated Medical Device and Diagnostics Research team has over 30 years of experience working with medical device and IVD companies of all sizes. To learn more about how to meet 2022 IVDR deadlines despite pandemic disruptions, read our whitepaper: The IVDR journey.
Sources
- European Commission Medical Device Coordination Group. (2019). MDCG 2019-13 Guidance on sampling of MDR Class IIa / Class IIb and IVDR Class B / Class C devices for the assessment of the technical documentation.
- MedTechViews. (2019). IVDR: an overview of clinical evidence requirements. http://www.medtechviews.eu/article/ivdr-overview-clinical-evidence-requirements
In this section
-
Digital Disruption
-
Digital Disruption whitepaper
- AI and clinical trials
-
Clinical trial data anonymisation and data sharing
-
Clinical Trial Tokenisation
-
Closing the evidence gap: The value of digital health technologies in supporting drug reimbursement decisions
-
Digital disruption in biopharma
-
Disruptive Innovation
- Remote Patient Monitoring
-
Personalising Digital Health
- Real World Data
-
The triad of trust: Navigating real-world healthcare data integration
-
Digital Disruption whitepaper
-
Patient Centricity
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Capturing the voice of the patient in clinical trials
-
Charting the Managed Access Program Landscape
-
Developing Nurse-Centric Medical Communications
- Diversity and inclusion in clinical trials
-
Exploring the patient perspective from different angles
-
Patient safety and pharmacovigilance
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Taking safety reporting to the next level with automation
-
Outsourced Pharmacovigilance Affiliate Solution
-
The evolution of the Pharmacovigilance System Master File: Benefits, challenges, and opportunities
-
Sponsor and CRO pharmacovigilance and safety alliances
-
Understanding the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Patient voice survey
-
Patient Voice Survey - Decentralised and Hybrid Trials
-
Reimagining Patient-Centricity with the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT)
-
Using longitudinal qualitative research to capture the patient voice
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Regulatory Intelligence
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
- EU Clinical Trials Regulation
-
Using innovative tools and lean writing processes to accelerate regulatory document writing
-
Current overview of data sharing within clinical trial transparency
-
Global Agency Meetings: A collaborative approach to drug development
-
Keeping the end in mind: key considerations for creating plain language summaries
-
Navigating orphan drug development from early phase to marketing authorisation
-
Procedural and regulatory know-how for China biotechs in the EU
-
RACE for Children Act
-
Early engagement and regulatory considerations for biotech
-
Regulatory Intelligence Newsletter
-
Requirements & strategy considerations within clinical trial transparency
-
Spotlight on regulatory reforms in China
-
Demystifying EU CTR, MDR and IVDR
-
Transfer of marketing authorisation
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
-
Therapeutics insights
- Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
- Cardiovascular
- Cell and Gene Therapies
- Central Nervous System
-
Glycomics
- Infectious Diseases
- NASH
- Oncology
- Paediatrics
-
Respiratory
-
Rare and orphan diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Cross-border enrollment of rare disease patients
-
Crossing the finish line: Why effective participation support strategy is critical to trial efficiency and success in rare diseases
-
Diversity, equity and inclusion in rare disease clinical trials
-
Identify and mitigate risks to rare disease clinical programmes
-
Leveraging historical data for use in rare disease trials
-
Natural history studies to improve drug development in rare diseases
-
Patient Centricity in Orphan Drug Development
-
The key to remarkable rare disease registries
-
Therapeutic spotlight: Precision medicine considerations in rare diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Transforming Trials
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Ensuring the validity of clinical outcomes assessment (COA) data: The value of rater training
-
Linguistic validation of Clinical Outcomes Assessments
-
Optimising biotech funding
- Adaptive clinical trials
-
Best practices to increase engagement with medical and scientific poster content
-
Decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
Decentralised and Hybrid clinical trials
-
Practical considerations in transitioning to hybrid or decentralised clinical trials
-
Navigating the regulatory labyrinth of technology in decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
eCOA implementation
- Blended solutions insights
-
Implications of COVID-19 on statistical design and analyses of clinical studies
-
Improving pharma R&D efficiency
-
Increasing Complexity and Declining ROI in Drug Development
-
Innovation in Clinical Trial Methodologies
- Partnership insights
-
Risk Based Quality Management
-
Transforming the R&D Model to Sustain Growth
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Value Based Healthcare
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
US payers and PROs
-
Accelerated early clinical manufacturing
-
Cardiovascular Medical Devices
-
CMS Part D Price Negotiations: Is your drug on the list?
-
COVID-19 navigating global market access
-
Ensuring scientific rigor in external control arms
-
Evidence Synthesis: A solution to sparse evidence, heterogeneous studies, and disconnected networks
-
Global Outcomes Benchmarking
-
Health technology assessment
-
Perspectives from US payers
-
ICER’s impact on payer decision making
-
Making Sense of the Biosimilars Market
-
Medical communications in early phase product development
-
Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Value Based Healthcare
-
Payer Reliance on ICER and Perceptions on Value Based Pricing
-
Payers Perspectives on Digital Therapeutics
-
Precision Medicine
-
RWE Generation Cross Sectional Studies and Medical Chart Review
-
Survey results: How to engage healthcare decision-makers
-
The affordability hurdle for gene therapies
-
The Role of ICER as an HTA Organisation
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
Blog
-
Videos
-
Webinar Channel