Tag: IVD

Posted on by

Regulatory Strategy: What is it, and why do you need one?

If you are planning to place an in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD) onto the market, It is critically important that you consider your regulatory strategy at the earliest opportunity. In our experience, building an effective strategy for regulatory strategy can be the difference between achieving product market access or not.

What is a Regulatory Strategy?

A Regulatory Strategy is a documented plan of all regulatory activities and deliverables that are required to be performed by a Legal Manufacturer. It should also align with the overall objectives of your organisation as defined within your vision, mission and business plan.

This should lay out a framework for placing an IVD on the market or markets depending on your commercial opportunity. Typically, the organisation will identify a priority list of countries where it is intending to sell the devices, the regulatory strategy describes the order of which these countries are being registered in.

Once the device is on the market, the plan continues to drive the regulatory surveillance mechanisms described as part of Post Market Surveillance as part of your ISO 13485 Quality Management System. It should also include a plan for meeting any transitions to updated regulatory requirements or ISO standards associated with the device.

Why do you need one?

For devices being placed on the European market under European IVD Regulation (IVDR), Article 10 (Manufacturers Obligations) describes the requirement for maintaining a regulatory strategy:

The quality management system shall address at least the following aspects:

(a) a strategy for regulatory compliance, including compliance with conformity assessment procedures and procedures for management of modifications to the devices covered by the system;

Furthermore, Annex IX requires the Quality Management System to include within its procedures, “a strategy for regulatory compliance, including processes for identification of relevant legal requirements, qualification, classification, handling of equivalence, choice of, and compliance with, conformity assessment procedures.”

In addition to the regulatory expectations, it is also hugely beneficial to plan and document the path to device registration and beyond. It also offers clear evidence to investors that the route to market has been considered and is planned.

When should you create one?

Typically, the regulatory strategy is formed, at a basic level, early on within the design and development process. Once your business vision and mission has been identified, and your business plan establishes the potential for the development of an IVD, the route to achieving that vision should now be considered.

Developing a regulatory strategy is an iterative process as many of the elements required will not have been considered or nailed down. This is entirely normal, but it is important to do the groundwork and start somewhere!

Our Approach to Regulatory Strategy

Education of the basic IVD requirements

A regulatory strategy can take many forms and will grow as you progress through the D&D process. We prefer to work with our SME customers and provide a regulatory strategy blended with some in-house training (virtually or on your site globally) on the key IMDRF principles, definitions and concepts of the regulation of IVDs. We aim to cover the main markets notably the EU, UK and MDSAP countries, to give you the best possible start in understanding what you need to know before developing your device.

Evaluate device type and classification and routes to market

Using your existing ideas of what your device is, and how it should be used, we can help you construct an Intended Purpose Statement, which is the bedrock of how IVDs are classified and assessed. We will guide you through how to assign device nomenclature including GMDN or EMDN codes to understand the routes for conformity assessment and submission requirements, EU Notified Bodies or UK Approved bodies as required. The output of this evaluation will be detailed within a Regulatory Strategy Report, which you can share with your wider team and investors.

The strategy should sit alongside the Quality Plan, used to identify and plan the implementation of a Quality Management System (QMS).

End to end planning

We can incorporate our knowledge to help you understand an estimation of design and development stages with associated costs. This will help you identify when you need to grow and when to secure additional funding. Our experience however is that bringing an IVD to is never a straight line and your regulatory strategy may change over time. We can give you the background knowledge and tools along the way to navigate the complexities and challenges that you may face.

Be part of the journey with you

As part of the Abingdon Health group, IVDeology can spend time with you to understand, explain and build your regulatory strategy together that works towards your timelines and business project goals, but not only that, we can work together as a strong technical team with your business to support any gaps you may need. IVDeology building your regulatory plan with you means you always have a supportive hand for any questions, queries or concerns every step of the way with a team who knows your goals and vision.

If you’d like to discuss a regulatory plan, whether you have an existing one already or starting from scratch, you can book a call here, or email us on [email protected] and we’d be happy to help!

Posted on by

US IVD Classification – How different can it be?

IVDeology have decades of IVD (invitro diagnostics) compliance support experience within the Quality and regulatory industry, with backgrounds from microbiology to lab based experience, and recently becoming part of the Abingdon Health PLC to offer a more holistic range of services from cradle to grave of diagnostic products. Co-founder and Director of training Nancy Consterdine talks about the US classifications of devices, having worked recently with US 510K submissions including pre-submissions.

The Global Harmonisation Task Force (GHTF) published their classification guidance in June 2006 proposing a risk based, 4 tier classification system for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices. This guidance has been widely used since 2006 for new regulatory systems being set up around the world e.g. the IVD Regulation in Europe 2017/746.

However, the United States of America (US) had already introduced a 3-tier risk-based classification system back in 1976 with the amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics act (FD&C) to include medical devices. This system has now been in place for 48 years, despite amendments having been made around the regulatory pathways e.g. introduction of the 510K De Novo program, enacting of the Small Business Determination program and electronic submission processes. So, how does the classification system work currently and what are the future changes that the FDA are proposing?

Figure above shows class |, || and ||| and risk (explained below)

Class 1

  • Low to Moderate Risk devices e.g. Transport culture medium, immunoelectrophoretic equipment, Biological stains
  • Subject to General Controls (Regulatory Requirements which apply to all medical devices) all covered under a quality management system:

    – Registration of producers of medical devices.
    – Notifications and other remedies e.g. recall.
    – Records and reports on devices e.g. adverse event report.
  • Manufacturers are still visible to FDA and may be subject to audit.
  • Devices may be exempted from a General Control as stated in the classification regulation for that device e.g. they may be exempt from GMP other than keeping records and complaint files.
  • Devices are submitted via the 510K pre-market notification process but some are exempt.

Class II

  • Moderate to High Risk e.g. Blood Culture Assay, Rubella ELISA Test
  • Subject to General Controls and Special Controls:
    – Device specific
    – Evidence of meeting performance standards
    – Post market surveillance
    – Adherence to guidelines
    – Special labelling requirement
  • General Controls are considered insufficient to provide assurance of safety and effectiveness.
  • Devices are submitted for pre-market notification via 510K process.

Class III

  • High Risk e.g. Cancer Biomarker companion diagnostic assay
  • Subject to General Controls and Premarket Approval:
    – Quality Management processes and controls
    – Software design, development and cyber security
    – Analytical Verification data
    – Clinical Performance Data
  • Pre-Market Approval (PMA) application is required

Recent Developments

In January 2024, a press release from Jeff Shuren, the director of the Centre for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) announced the intent to initiate the reclassification process for most IVDs which are currently class III (high risk) into class II (moderate risk). They identified that the majority of these tests are infectious disease and companion diagnostic IVDs. This is in line with the FDA least burdensome approach allowing manufacturers of some devices to seek marketing clearance through the 510K premarket notification route. In the release it also talked to the FDA desire to encourage more manufacturers to develop the test and in turn increase competition and access to these important tests.

The process of reclassification has already started with a panel meeting in September 2023 identifying 3 types of infectious disease diagnostic IVDs

  • Nucleic acid and serology based IVDs to aid diagnosis of Hepatitis B Virus infection and management of infected patients.
  • Serology based IVDs for detection of human parvovirus B19.
  • Cell mediated immune reactivity IVDs to aid identification of in vitro responses to peptide antigens associated with TB infection.

Conclusion

The IVD industry can only welcome these moves by the FDA in conjunction with the amendment of the Quality Management System regulation (QMS) to be more closely aligned to the ISO 13485:2016 standard. It makes the USA a far more inviting prospect for initial market authorisation applications. The costs are transparent, the timelines are clearly identified and there is a process in place to present and discuss the device with the FDA in a pre-submission meeting.

There are however other considerations that need to be taken, Jeff Shuren has recently announced his retirement and Dr Michelle Tarver will assume the role of CDRH Acting Director. Also, there are presidential elections this year, will these changes impact the current trajectory of the CHRH? We at IVDeology will continue to monitor the situation across the pond, it is evident that since Brexit the UK government has been eager to foster recognition of other regulatory body approvals and it does feel that the movement of the FDA approval process is going in the same direction as that of the UK MDR.

Next steps to consider, and how we can help.

IVDeology Ltd can support with all of the above, please contact us for a friendly conversation to identify how we can support you with your compliance journey via our contact page

Posted on by

MDSAP: Explaining the complexities and importance

The Medical Device Single Audit Programme (MDSAP) is a system by which the participant competent authorities to recognise the quality management certification (as awarded after audit against both ISO 13485 and county specific requirements) from a single authority for medical device and in-vitro diagnostic medical device (IVDs) legal manufacturers.

The programme has been established by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) and is intended to provide a harmonised approach to demonstrating the compliance of the Quality Management System (QMS) using a globally recognised approach.

The MDSAP was developed by the IMDRF to:

  • Enable appropriate regulatory oversight of medical device manufacturers’ quality management systems while minimizing regulatory burden on industry;
  • Promote more efficient and flexible use of regulatory resources through work sharing and mutual acceptance among regulators while respecting the sovereignty of each authority;
  • Promote globally, in the longer term, a greater alignment of regulatory approaches and technical requirements based on international standards and best practices;
  • Promote consistency, predictability and transparency of regulatory programs by standardizing;

    1. the practices and procedures of participating regulators for the oversight of third party auditing organizations, and
    2. the practices and procedures of participating third party auditing organizations

Regulatory Authorities

MDSAP consists of Regulatory Authority Council Members, Observers and Affiliate members:

Regulatory Authority Council Members:

  • Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia
  • Brazil’s Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária
  • Health Canada
  • Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration

The RAC is the decision-making body of MDSAP and consists of representatives from all regulatory authorities that are members of the RAC. The RAC provides direction, oversight, and resources to support the MDSAP development, implementation, maintenance, and expansion.

Observer Members:

  • European Union (EU)
  • Singapore’s Health Sciences Authority (HSA) (NEW)
  • United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification of In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Programme

The observers do not observe RAC members and do not attend RAC meetings, but they do observe and contribute the RAC activities. Both the EU and UK have been Observers for over 2 years, and as such, can apply to become full RAC members if desired.

Affiliate Members:

  • Argentina’s National Administration of Drugs, Foods and Medical Devices (ANMAT)
  • Ministry of Health of Israel
  • Kenya’s Pharmacy and Poisons Board (New member)
  • Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
  • Federal Commission for Protection from Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS) of Mexico
  • TFDA – Taiwan Food and Drug Administration

Affiliate members are not members of the RAC or an Official Observer, but engages in MDSAP, demonstrates understanding of MDSAP and utilizes MDSAP audit reports and MDSAP certificates for evaluating compliance with applicable medical device requirements, including a manufacturer’s quality management system, under the Affiliate Member’s regulatory framework.

The application of the MDSAP Programme

The utilisation of the MDSAP programme, and the resulting certificates are utilised differently depending on each Competent Authority as dedicated by each regional requirement.

Regulatory AuthorityUtilisation of MDSAP
AustraliaMDSAP audit report is used as part of the evidence that it has assessed for compliance with medical device market authorization requirements, unless excluded or exempt from these requirements.
BrazilANVISA utilizes the outcomes of the program as part of the pre-market and post market assessment.  
CanadaManufacturers intending to place a product on the market in Canada must have an MDSAP Certification issued by an Auditing Organization.
JapanThe Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) utilize these audit reports in pre-market and post-market audits.
United StatesU.S. FDA will accept the MDSAP audit reports as a substitute for FDA routine inspections under a 510(k) device application. The use of MDSAP is not utilised for pre-approval or post-approval inspections for Pre-Market Approval (PMA) applications.

The regulations for the above Regulatory Authorities are available (English) from the USA FDA Website.

The use of the MDSAP programme and certification will be greater utilised as he programme expands and more regulatory authorities recognise the value in this process.

The MDSAP Audit Cycle and Auditing Organisations

Auditing Organisation are certification bodies that have successfully applied, and been recognised by the MDSAP programme to audit medical device manufacturers against the requirements of the MDSAP programme. The current list includes many European Notified Bodies (under EU IVDR), and UK Approved Bodies (under UKCA) and are globally recognised.

The MDSAP audit is typically build on to the existing ISO 13485 certification audit of the Quality Management System with a 3-year audit cycle.

Figure 1 MDSAP Certification Cycle

Will MDSAP come to the EU and UK?

There is much talk regarding the use of MDSAP by the EU and UK. While I am a strong advocate in global harmonisation, the existing members joined MDSAP to find a harmonised way to create a robust process for standardising QMS requirements from a position where they needed to find a suitable and robust process. Regardless of the state of play in the EU and UK, both regions already have robust mechanisms for the surveillance of ISO 13485, largely provided by the technical and commercial expertise of EU and UK Notified Bodies and Approved Bodies (as part of ISO13485 certification/IVDR conformity assessment), so the utilising MDSAP would be less impactful.

The opportunity would be regarding the outward facing regulatory convergence of EU and UK to align, and reduce burden for accessing other markets, MDSAP would be a good way of doing this. We have seen TGA become well placed in MDSAP/IMDRF mainly utilising CE marking for supporting AUS market access.

The challenge with MDSAP is that each jurisdiction has specific requirements, which make the MDSAP process clunky. The key to an improved model is to remove local requirements as much as possible, however this is dependent on global alignment at a political as well as regulatory level.

References

If you’d like to discuss MDSAP with us, you can book a call with the IVDeology team as we navigate this new programme and what it means for you as a manufacturer or provider of IVD’s and devices with each of the individual requirements. Being part of BIVDA (British In Vitro Diagnostics association), we’re in a great position to be able to receive and understand information and distribute to our networks as it comes, in a reliable and digestible way.

Or if you’d like support in other areas of Quality assurance or regulatory compliance, we’d be happy to chat with you. We can support with Quality management system implementation, transfer or uplifting.

We’ll be keeping you up to date with MDSAP news on our LinkedIn page and website, so do follow up on our socials and keep up to date with IVDeology along with Abingdon Health PLC.

Written by Stuart Angell, MD and Co-founder of IVDeology and IVDeology UKRP

Posted on by

The MedTech Summit: A reflection

The IVDR journey is a long and difficult path but look how far we have come. Stuart Angell, Managing Director and co-founder of IVDeology attended this years 2024 MedTech Summit in Brussels and shares his thoughts below on the event as it happened.

I was lucky enough to attend the annual MedTech Summit in Brussels this week. I have now attended this event either in-person or virtually since 2019 and the event continues to provide enormous value to regulatory professionals in the medical device and IVD sector.

I was asked to chair the in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD) track on day 2, including presenting on the regulation of IVDs in the United Kingdom; and I also listened intently to great presentations on the current US (FDA) and European (IVD Regulation (IVDR)) regulatory landscape.  Suffice to say there is a great deal of positive change and complexity; and it was great to get a refresher on the current state of play!

Here are my overall thoughts on the event.

1) The UK remains a key market of interest

Much of my focus this year has been on the regulation of IVDs in the UK, including the utilisation of international recognition, and the domestic under UKCA marking.  I remain a strong advocate of the benefits of UK market access, and the potential for the UK being a world leader in the regulation of IVDs and medical devices. The UK medical device market is worth over €17 billion per annum and potentially offers a route to early adoption of new IVD technology; and it was encouraging to hear the overwhelming support and interest in the UK. The International Recognition is generally considered a positive and progressive step, however, there continues to be uncertainty in the domestic UKCA mark, and its role in global recognition.

2) The US offers a higher degree of certainty; IVDR remains in transition but will come good

This year had much more focus on US Regulation, and with good reason! While the IVDR continues to be implemented, the US is now considered a stable and predictable choice for market access. However, the US 510(k), De Novo and PMA routes should never be seen as an easy route to market. It still requires a great deal of effort to effectively achieve compliance.

For the last few years, l have been highlighting the challenges of IVDR, and the ongoing infrastructural issues that is making the uplift to IVD Regulation from IVD Directive so challenging. While many questions remain, I am taking this opportunity to reflect on the progress that has been made. Ask yourself: “what do I know now about IVDR than I did 12 months ago?” – The chances are quite a lot! So as an industry, we are all heading in the right direction albeit with many miles still to go.

3) We should all encourage and support structured dialogue

One of the challenges with the IVDR is the inability for Notified Bodies to offer advice and consultation.  This has cut off access to technical experts who may have been utilised to provide essential feedback on how to compile and construct technical documentation and performance studies. Developing a structured process for engaging with Notified Bodies, offers a chance for early dialogue on how to successfully achieve compliance. This is especially important for SMEs, or novel devices where the route to compliance is less well understood. Similar models have been employed as part of the US FDA Pre-submission process, and more recently, the UK MHRA IDAP Pilot.

Building this into the IVDR process would allow greater clarity to the industry, making IVDR more understood and ultimately lead to a higher chance of success.

In recent years (and I am guilty of this), we have pointed the finger at what is wrong with IVDR be it lack of guidance from the commission, resources from the Notified Body, or the inactivity of Manufacturers. And yes, some challenges remain, but what I am noticing this year is the desire to bring all stakeholders together to understand areas of weakness and opportunities for improvement which we can all learn from.

One key takeaway for me is the challenges of dealing with the regulatory complexity. This is a challenge for the largest multinationals dealing with a variety of products at different stages of their lifecycle; but also, for SMEs looking to launch one or two products; and considering which markets; and whether to manage the process internally or outsource. Certainly, managing the regulatory process, including post-market surveillance, has become more complex under IVDR; and outsourcing this has got to be a serious consideration; the positive is that these requirements are increasingly aligned across the UK, EU and the USA.

Overall, we all have a part to play in ensuring new innovative products get to market in the UK, Europe and the US; and improving health outcomes. Whilst the recent years have been challenging there is light at the end of the tunnel which should being to offer more certainly and more alignment of regulatory requirements across these jurisdictions which should be a real positive development. So, while the road remains long and challenging, why not take a moment to look back and see how far we have come.

IVDeology’s team has over 30 years’ experience supporting customers on quality assurance and regulatory compliance within the medical device and IVD market.  IVDeology’s services include supporting customers on regulatory filings in a range of territories including EU CE-marking (IVDR), USA (FDA), UK (UKCA) and other jurisdictions, including technical file build, regulatory submissions, regulatory gap analysis, analytical and clinical performance evaluation.

Stuart Angell, Managing Director, IVDeology

We also provide a range of quality assurance services including quality management system (QMS) build, QMS audit and full outsourcing or remote management of QMS systems. We also can be your UK or EU Responsible person.  If you would like to discuss any specific requirements, please contact IVDeology’s highly experienced team or click here.

 

Posted on by

Laboratory Developed Test regulation – how the US FDA has moved on since 1976


Laboratory Developed Tests (LDT) have been used for decades. However, it is clear that regulatory authorities have seen the misuse of these tests. They are now moving to close the loopholes in regulation that have exploited over the years and the implementation of the European IVD Regulation (2017/746) introduced those controls.

On 29 April 2024, the US FDA published the Final Rule amending the US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C). There are two main purposes for this update:

• To formally identify that IVDs are devices under the FD&C Act, including if they are manufactured in a laboratory but updating the definition of an IVD.
• To phase out the general enforcement discretion approach for LDTs over 4 years. This means that they will now generally fall under the same regulation and enforcement approach as other IVDs.

This update was long overdue, curiously the last time LDTs had been considered was under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 which amended the FD&C act to ensure the regulation of devices intended for human use. Since then, the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion for LDTs meaning that laboratories designing and manufacturing LDTs did not need to comply with those requirements.

Exceptions to the Rule

The change in rules do not apply to all devices, the following exemptions have been included for some circumstances:

LDTs marketed before Final Rule was published on 06 May 2024

  • Laboratory must still have Medical Device Reporting in place.
  • Must have Establishment and Device Listing in place.
  • Must comply with record keeping requirements.

Tests meeting unmet needs, Nonmolecular antisera LDTs

  • Record keeping requirements must be followed.
  • Other aspects of QMS are expected.

Understanding the Transitional Timelines

The transition will be a graduated process over the next three years. It is important that manufacturers understand what changes are expected, and when they are required.

Conclusion

Bringing LDTs under regulatory control can only be a good thing, the increase in high-risk, high-volume tests being offered to the public e.g. cancer risk prediction under LDT umbrella has forced regulators to act. There is no doubt that the future enforcement of regulatory controls will mean increased costs and resource requirements for those laboratories manufacturing LDTs in the US.

Unlike the EU IVD Regulation, it is clear that the FDA is using a less burdensome approach providing exceptions to the requirement to formally submit applications and wait for approvals if the LDT was already on “on market” before 06 May 2024. This does seem to be their current direction of travel in that they are actively seeking to down classify devices from PMA to 510(K) and to implement ISO 13485 to align Quality Management System requirements going forward.

Control is clearly moving to laboratories offering this type of test having QMS procedures in place to ensure that records are kept, and traceability is maintained. Oversight will be delivered with quality audits identifying issues and Medical Device Reporting highlighting issues to the FDA. The FDA will have the ability to show up on the doorstep of any facility they believe is having issues and this may be identified via market surveillance and/or patient/physician reporting of issues.

Next steps to consider and how we can help

IVDeology Ltd can support with all of the above, please contact us for a friendly conversation to identify how we can support you with your compliance journey by clicking here

By Nancy Consterdine, Co-founder and Director of Training at IVDeology Ltd and UKRP

Posted on by

Navigating the Shift from IVDD to IVDR

Key considerations for lateral flow providers; is it time to outsource your legal manufacturer requirements?

In this regulatory blog Abingdon’s Head of Quality Assurance & Regulatory Affairs Candice Vendetuolli outlines the transition from IVDD to IVDR for lateral flow tests and its implications for manufacturers. One key consideration is whether to use a manufacturing company such as Abingdon Health with an established quality management system operating under IVDR.

Abingdon Health’s team has over 20 years experience in the lateral flow market and is a knowledge leader in the scale-up, transfer, manufacturing and regulatory approval of lateral flow products across a range of sectors including clinical (self-test, point of care), animal health, plant pathogen and environmental testing.

Introduction:

The In Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR) has ushered in a new era for the regulation of diagnostic products, impacting lateral flow tests significantly. As the industry adapts to these changes, outsourcing legal manufacturing to contract service providers with a compliant Quality Management System (QMS) under IVDR is becoming a strategic move for many companies and can remove a major headache.

Transition from IVDD to IVDR

The shift from the In Vitro Diagnostic Directive (IVDD) to the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) marks a paradigm change in the regulatory landscape. IVDR, implemented in 2017, aims to enhance the safety and performance of in vitro diagnostic devices, including lateral flow tests. Manufacturers must adhere to more stringent requirements, covering clinical evidence, performance evaluation, and post-market surveillance.

The transition to the IVDR has caused significant challenges with infrastructure, Notified Body availability and manufacturing readiness resulting in the European Parliament voting to approve a further extension to the transition period. We took a deep dive in the impact of the extension in our blog last month on IVDR Transition Update which you can take a look at here.

Whilst the extension will be a relief for many, the requirements for manufacturers to prepare are extensive, and this should not be viewed as an opportunity to pause.

Impact on Lateral Flow Tests

Lateral flow tests, widely used for quick and simple diagnostics, face notable changes with the IVDR transition. The regulation demands comprehensive documentation, increased clinical evidence, and heightened scrutiny on post-market surveillance. Manufacturers need to invest in updated technologies and processes to comply with these stringent requirements.

Outsourcing Legal Manufacturing to Contract Service Providers

Amidst these changes, outsourcing legal manufacturing to contract service providers with established and compliant Quality Management Systems operating under IVDR has emerged as a strategic solution.

Providers such as Abingdon Health offer specialized expertise, infrastructure, and a streamlined process to navigate the complexities of the new regulatory framework. Abingdon Health’s Quality Management System operates under IVDR and therefore the addition of new products is a relatively straightforward process and can provide a more rapid and cost-effective transition to IVDR for lateral flow products.

Instead of having to replace your current IVDD compliant QMS with one that meets IVDR; or having to create a QMS of IVDR from scratch; you can tap into Abingdon’s existing QMS. Furthermore, given the requirements under IVDR are more onerous (e.g. post market-surveillance); outsourcing these activities to an experienced provider may make more sense; and be more cost-effective. Finally, if you are a company with one or a small number of products, it is very inefficient to run a QMS purely for this; with the fixed costs of running a QMS being significant.

Why Outsource Manufacturing under IVDR

  1. Expertise and Experience:

Contract service providers bring a wealth of experience and expertise in navigating the intricacies of IVDR. Their teams are well-versed in the regulatory landscape, ensuring compliance and reducing the risk of errors. Abingdon’s team has experience of working with notified bodies and managing the regulatory process on your behalf.

  1. Efficiency and Speed:

Outsourcing manufacturing to a specialized provider accelerates the production process. These providers are equipped with advanced technologies and efficient workflows, enabling quicker turnaround times for lateral flow tests. Abingdon’s Quality Management System is already established under IVDR; and therefore, it’s much quicker to use Abingdon rather than establish a brand-new quality management system for one product for example.

  1. Cost-Effectiveness:

Leveraging a contract service provider can be cost-effective compared to establishing in-house capabilities compliant with IVDR. Companies can allocate resources more efficiently, focusing on core competencies while relying on the expertise of external partners such as Abingdon.

  1. Risk Mitigation:

With IVDR introducing stricter regulatory requirements, outsourcing to a reputable service provider mitigates risks associated with compliance. These providers invest in continuous training and updates to ensure adherence to the latest regulations. For example, the post-market surveillance obligations under IVDR are significant and Abingdon Health has these processes established. This gives Abingdon’s customer peace of mind that these ongoing obligations are being dealt with.

  1. Flexibility and Scalability:

Contract manufacturing offers flexibility and scalability, crucial in the dynamic landscape of diagnostic devices. Companies can adjust production volumes based on market demands without the constraints of maintaining fixed in-house capacities.

  1. Access to Advanced Technologies:

Contract service providers often invest in cutting-edge technologies and state-of-the-art facilities. Outsourcing allows companies to benefit from these advancements without the upfront costs associated with acquiring and maintaining such resources.

  1. Regulatory Intelligence

The Abingdon Health group are ideally placed within the IVD industry to scan the horizon to monitor and adapt to updates ad changes to the European regulatory landscape, to ensure that our regulatory and quality system are state of the art and compliant to international standards.

Examples of IVDR transition and why outsourcing makes sense.

One example of why IVDR transition makes sense is for growth companies developing a new lateral flow test. Tapping into Abingdon Health’s established Quality Management System will save significant time and money and speed up the time to market and revenues.

A second example is an established diagnostics company selling a range of products that are CE-marked under IVDD. The Quality Management System is set up to manage all products and therefore if certain products are being prioritised for transition under IVDR, for example if they are Class D (high risk) tests then it may make sense to outsource the transition of these products to a contract service provider such as Abingdon Health. This keeps the process separate and “clean” and also means that you can leverage off Abingdon’s established Quality Management System.

Post Market-Surveillance

Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) is worth setting out in more detail. It is a critical change to the approach under IVDR and requires a lot more consideration, and resource. Abingdon Health has established processes to manage this process effectively on behalf of its customers.

The key requirements of post-market surveillance for Class A and B products are to summarise the results and conclusions of the analyses of the post market surveillance gathered, together with a rationale and description of any preventative and corrective actions taken.

In addition, for Class C and D devices other requirements include the conclusion of the benefit-risk determination, the main findings of the PMPF and the volume of sales and estimate of the size and demographics of the users. This information needs to be updated per product annually.

The PMS documentation requirements are significant: PMS System (all products), PMS Plan (all products), PMS Report (Class A and B products), PSUR reports (Class C and D products), SSP reports (Class C and D products) and if required for any class of products: Vigilance Reports, Trend Reports and FSCA reports. It is critical that this information is kept up to date as this information can be reviewed during your annual audits or unannounced audits and also will be reviewed at least once every 5 years as part as product re-certification.

Key Takeaways

The transition from IVDD to IVDR brings both challenges and opportunities for manufacturers of lateral flow tests. Outsourcing legal manufacturing to contract service providers operating under IVDR offers a strategic avenue for companies to adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape efficiently. By tapping into external expertise, leveraging advanced technologies, and ensuring compliance, businesses can navigate the complexities of IVDR while maintaining a focus on innovation and market competitiveness.

Decades of experience in taking tests from concept to commercialisation has led to Abingdon Health establishing effective processes to minimise risk and maximise the chances of commercial success. Abingdon’s regulatory team has experience on managing the IVDR transition process and ongoing obligations and can support your inhouse team or provide a fully outsourced regulatory solution to ensure you are well-prepared for your IVDR transition.

If you would like to understand more about the regulatory process, including FDA, CE-marking and UKCA-marking and discuss any specific requirements or concerns, contact a member of the IVDeology team by clicking here

Or if you’d prefer an easy and on-the-go accessible app right on your handheld device such as phone or tablet, you can download our IVDeology app which has the current IVDR specification handbook and for quick access to support from IVDeology – available for Android and Apple Store FREE download

Posted on by

A review of the MHRA International Recognition Statement of Policy

On the 21st May, the Medicine & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) published a Statement of policy  intent for the international recognition of medical devices. The purpose is to describe the overarching policy for recognising other regulatory approvals for medical devices including IVDs. The update to the UK Medical Device Regulations MDR 2002 will be expected in 2025-2026 following the principles described in this policy.

This is the first publication that lays out a rationale and possible process for international recognition, and is a top-level view of the process, where much of the detail will be covered when the Draft Statutory Instrument is published later in the year.

The access routes may not be used for the following device/device types:

  • Exempted in-house devices
  • Custom-made devices
  • Some Software as a Medical Devices
  • Companion Diagnostics relying on equivalence to a predicate, or where associated medicinal substances that are not licenced in the UK

Comparable Regulator Countries (CRCs)

The principle of international recognition is for the utilisation of other regulatory systems. This is typically based on International Medical Device Regulatory Forum (IMDRF) principles.

The initial CRCs described in the policy are:

  • Australia (TGA)
  • Canada (Health Canada)
  • European Union
  • United States of America (FDA)

Proposed Access Routes

Figure 1 Proposed IVD Access Routes

Recognition of CRCs – Class A non-sterile

  • Self-registration with MHRA
  • Declaration to quality management system (ISO13485)

Reliance of European Union (IVDR) – Class A sterile, B, C, D

  • Submission of technical documentation (IMDRF)
  • Post market surveillance plan and report (PMSR or PSUR)

Reliance with Abridged Assessment and Device Specific Requirements of Australia, Canada and United States of America

  • Submission of technical documentation (IMDRF)
  • Post market surveillance plan and report (PMSR or PSUR)
  • Summary of safety and performance (Class C and D)

Basic Requirements

To access the UK market, the devices will be required to meet specific UK requirements, these could include:

Further details on the UK specific requirements are expected to be published in alignment to the IVD roadmap. These will be laid down within the Statutory Instruments which will update the current Medical Devie regulation.

While the information provided is very broad, and much of the detail will be provided in the draft SI documents, the approach taken by the MHRA should be seen as a hugely positive step. The routes proposed provide a pragmatic route, especially if utilising existing CE marking, or 510(k) submissions.

It remains to be seen what the roles and responsibilities for the economic operators in the regulatory chain are, including the UKRP, and the role of UK Approved Bodies. However, I welcome the opportunity to read, understand and reflect on the possible process for International Recognition.

How IVDeology can help?

As a UK based provider of IVD specific quality and regulatory compliance services, we are proud to offer advice and support for the IVD industry on UK market access. This includes:

  • UK Responsible Person (UKRP)
  • UK Compliance readiness assessment
  • QMS review and uplift to UK MDR requirements

For any information on these services, or for any questions on the transition to UKCA, please contact [email protected].

Note: This blog is a personal view of Stuart Angell, Managing Director of IVDeology, based on published documents referenced.

#IVDR #MDR #FDA #510k #IVD #invitrodiagnostics #lateralflow #UKCA

Posted on by

EU IVDR Transition Update 2024

IVDR Transitional Provisions – Something had to give!

On the 23 April 2024, the European Parliament unanimously approved the proposal to amend the EU MDR (2017/745) and IVDR (2017/746) regarding the gradual roll out of Eudamed, information obligation in case of interruption of supply and the transitional arrangements for certain in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs).

The amendment has been requested by industry to ensure continued access to critical diagnostic products, essential for a smooth running European healthcare system, and offering a hight level of protection to patients and users of diagnostic tests.

Why was change needed?

The IVDR has applied for placing IVDs onto the EU market since 26 May 2022, replacing the existing IVD Directive 98/79/EC, this required that all devices, including legacy devices, must meet a higher level of regulatory compliance. In January 2022, the European Parliament and Council adopted an extension to the transitional arrangement, with extended timelines based on the risk classification of devices:

Risk ClassCurrent deadlines for compliance
Class D (Highest Risk)26 May 2025
Class C26 May 2026
Class B, Class A Sterile26 May 2027
New devices, Class A (Lowest Risk)26 May 2022 (No extension)
Devices used in Healthcare Institution26 May 2028

The original transitional extension was intended to ease the pressure on implementation issues and delay experienced with infrastructure (including Eudamed), Notified Body availability and manufacturing readiness, all of which were impacted by the Covid-19 outbreak.

While the transitions had allowed some breathing space, the industry is facing an uphill struggle to be ready to meet these dates.

What is changing?

  1. Further transitional extension for some devices

With the exception of legacy devices that do not require conformity assessment (Class A and devices used on Healthcare Institutions), additional time is being added to the transition time for IVDR, and existing devices can continue to be placed on the EU market until the following dates:

Risk ClassCurrent deadlines for compliance
Class D31 December 2027
Class C31 December 2028
Class B, Class A Sterile31 December 2029

To use these timelines however, manufacturers must comply with certain conditions including:

  • The devices are CE marked under the IVD Directive,
  • There are no significant changes to the design or intended purpose,
  • A Quality Management System compliant to IVDR shall be put in place by 26 May 2026,
  • A formal application shall be lodged with a notified body 2 years prior to the dates above.

2. Bringing forward the mandatory use of Eudamed

The Eudamed database includes seven electronic elements including UDI, Vigilance and Market Surveillance. The earlier mandatory use of some Eudamed module would offer an enhanced adoption for this critical element of IVDR deployment.

3. Prior notice if supply of IVD is stopped

To reduce the risk of device shortages, the proposal includes a requirement whereby Manufacturers are required to inform their relevant competent authority and health institutions if there is a temporary, or permanent interruption in the supply of their IVDs, especially if there are few or no alternative products, or where there is a risk of serious harm to patients or public health.

How will this impact industry readiness to IVDR?

The proposal offers a short term solutions for the current state of readiness in the industry for IVDR, especially for Class D devices, which often include low volume, but highly critical diagnostics which were at risk of not meeting IVDR compliance before the deadline of May 2025.

The proposal also encourages an increased usage of Eudamed, which has seen low adoption (caused in part by the delays to each module) by manufacturers within the UDI and Devices module.

In a wider sense, the commission is trying to mitigate the risk of supply shortages as a result of the IVDR transition, although it is currently up to the manufacturer to determine the severity of risk to supply for their products.

Don’t delay

The proposal allows a collective sigh of relief, allowing the industry more time to prepare the technical documentation and engage with a notified body. However in reality, the additional timelines do not offer time to pause. The additional 2 year delay allows the completion of the conformity assessment process, it does not provide any further time for getting the QMS ready for the IVDR. The amendment also allows manufacturers to also ensure their clinical evidence is compliant as we know that legacy devices require additional performance testing before they are IVDR compliant.

In the long term it remains to be seen how significant this amendment will elevate the challenges facing the industry as they transition from IVDD to IVDR. It remains to be seen to what extent the industry will be ready in another 2 years time.

While this should be seen as a positive, we would encourage Manufacturers to press forward with their IVDR transition planning now. For more information on how IVDeology have supported our customers achieve IVDR compliance, contact [email protected].

Note: This blog contains a summary of the key changes within the proposal, it is important that Manufacturers read and understood the proposal in full, and get independent legal advice if required.

Posted on by

Notified Bodies Survey on certifications and applications (MDR/IVDR)

Last week saw the revised version of the Notified Bodies Survey on certifications and applications (MDR/IVDR) published by the European Commission. [Survey NBs availability (europa.eu)]

While there are still no conclusions made from the results of the survey, it does offer a useful insight on the current state of play for the transition to the MDR for medical devices and IVDR for in-vitro diagnostics.

The challenges the industry has faced to achieve compliance to the new regulations has been widely discussed [refer to previous blogs], resulting in continued delays to the implementation of the regulations, based largely on the state of readiness of the regulatory infrastructure of the EU system.

The regulation has been designed “to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market as regards in vitro diagnostic medical devices, taking as a base a high level of protection of health for patients and users, and taking into account the small and medium-sized enterprises that are active in this sector.”

From <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017R0746&qid=1685433681978>

 In reality, the challenge for SMEs to comply to the new IVDR is great, given the additional data burden, time, and money required to obtain a CE mark. I have often wondered if the EU market is a step too far as a 1st launch country for SMEs, over the opportunity of US market access – and the UK (if the regulators can identify a pragmatic approach under IDAP).

It is therefore an interest to see the graph shown in the report:

The survey highlighted that the NB have SMEs as their main clients for conformity assessment, this is a positive message in that SMEs are still preparing for IVDR compliance, and it will be interesting to see how the implementation of IVDR is achieved for small and medium size businesses.

Here at IVDeology, an immediate question that came from the information above is that the definition of SME encompasses a large number of organisations but internally the teams can vary in size, and the ones we commonly work with here at IVDeology would be at the lower end of the scale. It would be good to know the spread of size of SME’s out there so that we can understand the landscape and dynamic of those hoping to grow.

IVDeology works throughout the whole IVD industry, including supporting SMEs along their path to compliance. For further information on how we can support you, contact [email protected]

Posted on by

MHRA update for future MDR and IVDR

The MHRA held a webinar on March 5th to give an insight into the plans for the future UK regulations for medical devices and IVDs.

The key points for IVDs they made are:

· The definition of IVD will be extended to mirror the definition in the IVDR.

· Devices will be classified into 4 groups, A-D, using a risk based approach. Device classification will follow the IMDRF guidance N64 document – Principles of In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Medical Devices Classification, with a couple of UK specifics:

o Devices which monitor infectious loads of life-threatening infectious diseases will be classified as Class D

o Devices with the intended purpose for screening, detecting or diagnosing either neurodegenerative diseases or cardio vascular diseases will be classified as Class C.

Accessories, Independent Software and Companion diagnostics will be classified in their own right. Software that drives a device, calibrators and controls will be classified in the same group as the associated device.

· The Essential Requirements will be updated to generally align with the GSPR under IVDR with differences to reflect the UK specific legislation & national bodies.

o This includes alignment for the requirements for labelling and instructions for use.

The take home message we took away was that they are trying to harmonise with the IMDRF model and the EU IVDR wherever possible to try and reduce the burden on manufacturers whilst still ensuring that the devices on the GB market are safe and effective for users and patients.

Whilst this is good news for manufacturers as a whole and for many they may see very little difference between the UK and EU regulations. However for other manufacturers their devices may end up being classified differently in each regulation. What potential challenges may these differences in classification cause?

As the essential requirements will align, the impact for the technical file will hopefully be minimal. And following the IMDRF model may have advantages too – aligning with other key markets such as Canada and Australia. However differing classifications may have an impact on Post Market Surveillance and whether a PMS report or a Periodic Safety Update Report is required. It may also give notified bodies/UK approved bodies more work as they will have to consider how the differences in classification impact their role. What may the impact on market access be if we diverge from the EU when we know our market are closely linked? We would love to hear some thoughts.

Written by Fiona Thompson – RA specialist at IVDeology