Posted on

What Are EU Reference Labs for IVDs?

EU Reference Labs for IVD’s – explained

In vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) play a vital role in providing essential information for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of diseases.  IVDs must comply with the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulation (IVDR – Regulation (EU) 2017/746) to be placed on the European Union (EU) market.

The IVDR introduced the concept of EU Reference Laboratories (EURLs) for IVDs. EURLs are specialised laboratories designated by the European Commission, to provide scientific and technical expertise for specific types of high-risk IVDs. The designation and responsibilities of EURLs are outlined in Article 100 of the IVDR and more details are laid out in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/944.

Designation & Responsibilities of EURLs

For a laboratory to be designated as an EURL by the European Commission, it must:

  • Demonstrate appropriate expertise and experience in the relevant field
  • Have adequate staff with appropriate qualifications
  • Possess necessary equipment and reference materials
  • Show impartiality and independence from commercial interests
  • Comply with ISO/IEC 17025 and other relevant standards
  • Have appropriate quality management systems in place

Once designated, EURLs’ tasks include the following:

  • Performance Verification – EURLs verify the performance claims of class D IVDs by conducting laboratory tests on samples provided by manufacturers i.e., EURLs carry out tests on each manufactured batch of devices.
  • Common Specifications Development – EURLs contribute to the development of common specifications and technical guidance for specific types of devices.
  • Technical Assistance – EURLs provide scientific advice and technical assistance to national authorities, notified bodies and manufacturers.
  • Reference Materials Management – EURLs establish, manage, and make available reference materials and methods for high-risk IVDs.
  • Coordination Role – EURLs coordinate a network of national reference laboratories to harmonize testing methodologies and practices across the EU.
  • Research and Innovation – EURLs contribute to research and innovation in their specific areas of expertise.

Types of IVDs Subject to EURL Assessment

The EURLs verify the performance claims and carry out batch testing on high-risk (Class D) IVDs:

  • Devices which detect the presence of / exposure to, a transmissible agent in blood / blood components / cells tissues / organs / any of their derivatives, to assess their suitability for transfusion / transplantation / cell administration.
  • Devices which detect the presence of / exposure to, a transmissible agent that causes a life-threatening disease with high propagation risk.
  • Devices which determine the infectious load of a life-threatening disease, where monitoring is critical in the process of patient management.
  • Devices for blood grouping, which determine any of the following markers:
    • ABO system [A (ABO1), B (ABO2), AB (ABO3)]
    • Rhesus system [RH1 (D), RHW1, RH2 (C), RH3 (E), RH4 (c), RH5 (e)]
    • Kell system [KEL1 (K)]
    • Kidd system [JK1 (Jka), JK2 (Jkb)]
    • Duffy system [FY1 (Fya), FY2 (Fyb)]

Impact on the Industry

EURLs for IVDs have an impact on both IVD manufacturers and notified bodies.

Manufacturers of class D IVDs must submit samples of their device to an appropriately designated EURL for the EURL to verify performance claims and compliance to any common specifications. Manufacturers must then incorporate any feedback into their technical documentation. Prior to release of a batch of any Class D IVDs, manufacturers must wait for EURLs to confirm they have completed their tests.

Notified bodies will need to consult with EURLs when assessing certain high-risk IVDs and factor in EURL’s opinions into their assessment decisions. Notified bodies will also have to maintain communication with EURLs for post-market surveillance.

Implementation Challenges

Although the IVDR became fully applicable on 26 May 2022, implementation of the regulation has not necessarily been smooth. The timelines to which certain devices must be compliant to the IVDR have been extended more than once and establishing a EURL network has been challenging. Resources have been restrained, as building the necessary infrastructure and hiring the appropriate expertise has required significant investment and coordination.

As a result, the European Commission adopted a phased approach to EURL designation and until EURLs are fully operational for all relevant device categories, interim procedures have been established for the conformity assessment of class D IVDs. MDCG 2021-4 provides guidance on how EURLs should be integrated into the conformity assessment process when designated.

Current State of Play

The European Commission have designated the following 5 EURLs by the implementing act Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2713

Designated EU reference laboratoryScope of designation Class D devices intended for detection or quantification of markers of:
Consortium managed by Servicio Madrileño de Salud (SERMAS), Spain and composed of: Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Spain Hospital Universitario la Paz, Spain Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, SpainHerpesvirus infection Infection with bacterial agents
Consulting Químico Sanitario SLU (CQS), SpainHerpesvirus infection Infection with bacterial agents
EU Referenzlabor für In-vitro-Diagnostika am Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI-IVD), Germany Hepatitis or retrovirus infection Respiratory virus infection
Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), SpainHepatitis or retrovirus infection Herpesvirus infection  Infection with bacterial agents
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB (RISE), SwedenRespiratory virus infection

These EURLs took up their tasks in the conformity assessment of devices on 1 October 2024.

In February 2025, the European Commission launched a further call for more applications to be submitted by Member States on behalf of their candidate laboratories for designation of EURLs. This call will be conducted in 2 waves.

The 1st wave is for the following categories of class D devices:

  • detection or quantification of markers of arbovirus infection
  • detection or quantification of markers of parasite infection
  • detection of blood grouping markers

Laboratories must submit applications to their Member State by 15 April 2025 (note: this date is indicative and laboratories should check with their specific Member State).

Member States must forward applications to the Commission by 6 June 2025.

The 2nd wave is for any of the following 8 categories of class D devices:

  • detection or quantification of markers of hepatitis or retrovirus infection 
  • detection or quantification of markers of herpesvirus infection 
  • detection or quantification of markers of infection with bacterial agents
  • detection or quantification of markers of arbovirus infection
  • detection or quantification of markers of respiratory virus infection
  • detection or quantification of markers of infection with haemorrhagic fever viruses or other biosafety level 4 viruses
  • detection or quantification of markers of parasite infection
  • detection of blood grouping markers

Laboratories must submit applications to their Member State by 15 January 2026 (note: this date is indicative and laboratories should check with their specific Member State).

Member States must forward applications to the Commission by 15 April 2026.

Conclusion

EURLs play a critical role in ensuring certain Class D IVDs are safe and effective. Although there are interim procedures in place for the conformity assessment of Class D IVDs, the IVD industry will benefit from the certainty of having enough designated EURLs to cover all categories of Class D devices.

Let’s hope this new call for further applications for designation of EURLs will provide additional resources the EU IVD industry desperately needs.

If you’re looking for a regulatory partner to offer compliance advise and support, get in touch with IVDeology today to begin your new partnership or email us at [email protected]

What Are EU Reference Labs for IVDs?

What Are EU Reference Labs for IVDs?

EU Reference Labs for IVD’s – explained In vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) play …

A review of the MHRA Fee Consultation

A review of the MHRA Fee Consultation

Executive Summary The MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) held a public consu…

eQMS is Like a Chocolate Selection box: Choosing the Right Quality Management System

eQMS is Like a Chocolate Selection box: Choosing the Right Quality Management System

Choosing an electronic Quality Management System (eQMS) might not sound like it has much in common w…

Understanding Companion Diagnostics: A Key to Personalised Medicine

Understanding Companion Diagnostics: A Key to Personalised Medicine

The first companion diagnostic (CDx) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 19…

IVDeology now offering QMS Hosting Services!

IVDeology now offering QMS Hosting Services!

One of the biggest challenges we see is the adoption of an effective Quality Management System (QMS)…

BIVDA Member IVDeology excited to Sponsor 2025 IVDR Event

BIVDA Member IVDeology excited to Sponsor 2025 IVDR Event

IVDeology are excited to announce our first sponsorship of a BIVDA event, the 2025 annual 2-day IVDR…

You agree to receive email communication from us by submitting this form and understand that your contact information will be stored with us.

Posted on

eQMS is Like a Chocolate Selection box: Choosing the Right Quality Management System

Choosing an electronic Quality Management System (eQMS) might not sound like it has much in common with picking out a chocolate bar, but in many ways, the process is surprisingly similar. Both involve sifting through a variety of options to find the perfect fit for your specific needs and tastes. Just like when you’re deciding between dark, milk, or white chocolate, selecting the right eQMS requires considering your unique preferences, goals, and requirements.

Do you prioritize smoothness and simplicity, or do you need something with a bit more complexity and richness? In this blog, we’ll explore how the decision-making process for an eQMS mirrors the sweet (and sometimes overwhelming) experience of choosing your favourite chocolate bar. So, let’s unwrap the similarities and help you make a decision that’s both satisfying and beneficial

The eQMS Landscape

Here’s an interesting fact, just like chocolate, there are over 100 different versions of eQMS software available today! The remarkable thing is that you can build a compliant quality management system with any of these tools. You could even create one using basic platforms like SharePoint or Google Drive!

What Makes the Difference?

So what separates one eQMS from another? Different systems offer varying functionalities:

  • Some leverage AI (artificial intelligence) capabilities
  • Others focus on simplicity
  • Many interconnect with other business functions

It’s all about understanding what’s right for you and your organization. Quality management system software provides both a tool and a framework to build your QMS around. The work and effort required to build a QMS is largely driven by your specific company needs.

The Value of Expertise

This is where consultants become valuable. Through their careers, consultants experience different types of QMS systems built by different organisations at various stages of development. We can help you determine not only where to begin but also where you may want to go in the future. Our perspective and expertise can support you in developing a long-term strategy for quality planning and QMS implementation.

Our Recommended Options

While hundreds of options exist, here are three QMS software providers we regularly work with:

  1. Cognidox  – This is the system we use to build our own ISO-compliant QMS. It offers simple setup, ease of use, and scalability based on your company’s needs rather than forcing you into a predefined structure.
  2. TraceX – A robust alternative with its own strengths and considerations.
  3. ISMS – Another effective system that works well for certain organizational needs.

Both TraceX and ISMS work excellently, each with positives and negatives. The key is understanding what’s important to you, and we’d be happy to spend time with you to discuss these points. What works wonders for one organisation might not be suitable—or even detrimental—for another. This largely depends on each organisation’s unique needs, processes, and goals – just like how someone absolutely adores a coconut Bounty, whereas someone else, not so much!

Finding Your Perfect Match

Sometimes you want a Bounty, sometimes a Snickers, and sometimes you’re not even sure what you’re craving. But what you don’t want to do is settle for something medicore.

For more information on what’s right for you and how to effectively build a quality management system, get in touch with us on [email protected]. We can discuss these processes in more detail and help build you an effective, right-first-time quality management system tailored to your needs, after all, we maintain and work within our own QMS and know that a quality management system is for life, not just for your audits!

Posted on

IVDeology now offering QMS Hosting Services!

One of the biggest challenges we see is the adoption of an effective Quality Management System (QMS) too late in the design and development process of a medical device, especially for start up companies who don’t have the internal resources, funds or time to do so!

Great ideas and great products being delayed due to not having the quality and technical documentation required to meet regulatory requirements. Without a QMS, you don’t have a product! But we all know the challenge that companies face when they’re met with the dreaded question of ‘do you have a Quality management system?’

QMS Challenges we see faced by small businesses: 

  • Understanding the regulatory requirements – these go hand in hand
  • Finding the right QMS offering – this can be size, costing, adaptability, and so on!
  • Dedicating time and resources to the QMS
  • Developing Quality and Regulatory expertise 
  • Affordability of effective solutions 

Developing a QMS can be a significant challenge for a small business. It can be expensive and time consuming. Most QMS providers provide basic templates and technical support, but it takes time and specialist knowledge to build an effective QMS to allow business growth and regulatory approval. And on the other hand, some offer way too much for what small companies actually need right away, meaning you’ve overpaid for way more than you need, which can lead to being overwhelmed and frustrated.

So what are the benefits of a QMS? 

  • Meets regulatory requirements – again, they go hand in hand
  • Enables growth and expansion 
  • Improves operational efficiency 
  • Reduces product and business risk 
  • Build customer confidence 
  • Offers a competitive advantage 

Read our previous blog: “A QMS isn’t just for IVDR conformity assessment…. it’s for life!” to learn more about how implementing and maintaining a QMS that works for you is so important


 IVDeology have a proven track record supporting our customers build, host and maintain a quality management system specific to their industry: 

  • ISO 9001 – General quality management system, ideal for service providers 
  • ISO 13485 – Specific for Medical Devices and In vitro diagnostic manufacturers 
  • ISO 17025 – Quality Management System for testing laboratories 

Our aim is to provide a common-sense approach to quality compliance, and we understand that start up companies cannot afford all the bells and whistles for a fully fledged QMS that they just can’t and won’t need to utilise yet.

We now offer eQMS hosting, a solution that we feel every small business can benefit from. But what is it?

IVDeology use Cognidox, an eQMS platform that allows us to build our system round our own needs, we can create templates, process with change controls, manage procedures and personalise it to what we deem important for us.

We have the ability to host your company within our eQMS system, a safe and secure, private account within Cognidox that allows you to begin with 1-2 members to start building your Quality management system.

Benefits of us hosting you within Cognidox:

  • You have access to all our templates for documents and procedures, and these can be tailored to you and your product(s) and processes
  • We use Cognidox! You can receive training and a demo of the systems, and you can add on adhoc support from us if you need it later on
  • It can be as basic as you like for what you need now to comply with the regulations
  • Buildable and manageable, both for content but also adding users if and when your team grows
  • You can capture your QMS and move it over to your own system whenever you decide you can begin to host your own eQMS internally – so you won’t lose any data or have to start again
  • Secure, reliable system that auditors can be given access to

We have been onboarding several customers who are excited to be hosted in our system, and we’d be more than happy to demonstrate or give a free demo access for those who would like to try it out, you can email us on [email protected], drop us a message on LinkedIn, or book right into our calendar by clicking here: Bookings

Posted on

Key Regulatory Dates for your 2025 diary

The changeable regulatory environment for Medical Devices and In vitro Diagnostic medical devices (IVD) is showing no sign of slowing down as we begin 2025.

The UK Government agency, the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have already provided us with a Roadmap towards the future regulatory framework for medical devices, published on 9 January 2024, recently updated in December 2024.

Given the expectation that these dates are targets, and may change, we can expect the following updates throughout 2025:

January 2025Public Consultation on Medical Devices Regulations: Routes to market and in vitro diagnostic devices closes on 05 January 2025.

March 2025 – Publication of new guidance on UK Post-Market Surveillance regulation.

March 2025 – New guidance of use of Exceptional Use Authorisation, including the potential changes in EUA for Covid-19 tests under CTDA.

April 2025 – Potential MHRA Fees change (link to consultation)

April 2025 – Published response on public consultation on UK Post-Market Surveillance regulation.

May 2025 – Certificates issued in accordance with IVD Directive (98/79/EC) Annex VI which shall become void at the latest on 27 May 2025 and can not be used for placing CE marked IVDs on the Great British Market.

June 2025Post Market Surveillance Statutory Instrument in force (PMS)

June 2025 – Development of draft guidance on artificial intelligence (AI) development and deployment

Winter 2025 – Statutory Instrument on Pre-Market Requirements

With so much change happening, it has never been so important to engage with your regulatory teams, to understand the impact and implications of the changes and to get ahead of the game. IVDeology work with IVD manufacturers throughout the global industry to Educate, Evaluate and Execute regulatory strategies to Sustain market access.

You can get in touch with IVDeology by booking time with our friendly team here or email i[email protected] – we’d be happy to chat

We also have a series of online webinars that can also support your next steps and understanding of the regulatory landscape, you can check the early 2025 sessions here:

Importance of the role of PRRC (person responsible for regulatory compliance) under MDR and IVDR – 23rd January 2025 The Role of the Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance (PRRC) Under the MDR and IVDR Training Course

2 day online Introduction to the Invitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) webinar – 5th and 6th February 2025 Introduction to the In-Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) Training Course

Posted on

UK Labour Budget: Breakdown for Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund

As part of the first budget prepared by the new UK Labour Government, a new Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund was announced.

“The government has committed up to £520 million for life sciences manufacturing, to help deliver on the government’s missions to kickstart economic growth and build an NHS fit for the future.

The LSIMF will be UK and sector wide and will provide capital grants for investments in the manufacture of:

  • Human medicines (this includes both the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) / drug substance and finished product / drug product).
  • Medical diagnostics – for both disease identification and monitoring.
  • MedTech products – all types of medical devices related to human health.”

This new initiative could offer an opportunity to grow an SME diagnostic company to enhance their manufacturing capabilities.

“To be eligible for the fund, your project must:

  • Have a total cost (capital and non-capital costs) of at least £8 million
  • Be located in the UK
  • Be primarily a capital investment
  • Be a single company investment (as opposed to forming a partnership between companies or other types of organisations)
  • Require only the amount of grant requested to proceed. For example, without the specific amount of funding you are requesting your project wouldn’t go ahead or go ahead at a smaller scale, go ahead overseas or would be significantly delayed (3 years or more)
  • Be a manufacturing project for the manufacture of:
    • Human medicines (this includes both the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) / drug substance and finished product / drug product).
    • Medical diagnostics – for both disease identification and monitoring
    • MedTech products – all types of medical devices related to human health.

The fund is open to applications for both MHRA-licenced products and products in development where a MHRA licence is intended to be sought for commercial scale-up, for example a manufacturing project for clinical trials.

  • Manufacturing facilities are required to work to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) and the facility be intended to support clinical and/or commercial manufacture of API or drug product.
  • Manufacturers of medicinal diagnostics and medical devices must confirm that their device meets or intends to meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002.”

Source: Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund (LSIMF): application guide – GOV.UK

The reference to the requirement to meet, or plan to meet the Medical Device Regulations 2002. Currently this would require device manufacturers to understand and comply with the current UK regulations, and potentially any new updates relating to UKCA. It would be interested to learn what level of regulatory understanding the manufacturers are required to have and demonstrate as part of the application.

For ideas on building an effective regulatory strategy, find out more in our recent blog: ‘Regulatory Strategy: What is it, and why do I need one?’

You can reach out to us at [email protected] or you can book straight into our diary at a time suitable for you here


Posted on

Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance under Article 15 of the IVDR

In the realm of In-vitro diagnostic Medical devices, regulatory compliance is non-negotiable. The European Union In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) have set stringent standards to ensure the safety and efficiency of medical devices. A pivotal role introduced by these regulations is the Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance (PRRC). The PRRC is tasked with ensuring that all regulatory requirements are met, from product development through to post-market surveillance. This role is essential for maintaining the quality and safety of medical devices, and compliance with these regulations is mandatory for companies operating within the EU.

However, for many companies, especially small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the challenges associated with maintaining an in-house PRRC can be daunting. This is where outsourcing the PRRC role comes into play. Article 15 of the IVDR allows the utilisation of external PRRCs for micro and small enterprises. IVDeology have a proven track record in providing expert regulatory expertise to SMEs.

Company categoryStaff headcountTurnoverorBalance sheet total
Medium-sized< 250≤ € 50 m≤ € 43 m
Small< 50≤ € 10 m≤ € 10 m
Micro< 10≤ € 2 m≤ € 2 m

Source: SME definition – European Commission (europa.eu)



Access to Specialised Knowledge

One of the most significant benefits of outsourcing the PRRC role is the access to specialized expertise. Regulatory compliance is a complex and ever-evolving field, requiring a deep understanding of both the regulations and the specific products being developed. Outsourcing to a third-party provider ensures that the PRRC has the necessary experience and knowledge to navigate these complexities. These experts are typically well-versed in the intricacies of the IVDR, and they stay abreast of the latest developments in the regulatory landscape. This level of expertise can be particularly advantageous for companies developing innovative or highly specialized products, as it ensures that all regulatory requirements are met to the highest standards.



Saving Time and Money in the Long Run

Hiring and training an in-house PRRC can be a costly endeavour. The recruitment process itself can be expensive, and once a suitable candidate is found, they need to be trained and continuously educated on the latest regulatory requirements. Additionally, the salary for an experienced PRRC can be substantial. By outsourcing this role, companies can reduce these costs significantly. Third-party providers typically offer their services on a contract basis, which can be more cost-effective than employing a full-time, in-house PRRC. This approach allows companies to allocate their financial resources more efficiently, investing in other critical areas of their business such as research and development, marketing, or expanding their product portfolio.

Our aim is to work with our clients to develop a succession plan for the eventual internal replacement of our virtual PRRC. We will train and mentor the identified internal team members so build the experience required to meet the requirements of Article 15.

Letting Experts Handle Compliance

Regulatory compliance, while essential, is often not a company’s core activity. For many organizations, particularly SMEs, the primary focus is on developing innovative products, enhancing customer experiences, and growing their business. We understand that some organisations may not want to build their regulatory team internally, so we always try to build long term relationships with our customers for continuous support. By outsourcing the PRRC role, companies can allow their internal teams to focus on these core activities. This not only enhances productivity but also ensures that the regulatory compliance function is handled by experts. This separation of duties can lead to better outcomes in both regulatory compliance and overall business performance.

“Regulatory compliance is the responsibility of everyone in the organisation, the PRRCs core responsibility is to observe, reflect and advise on the overall compliance state of the organisation to senior management”

Adapting to Changing Needs

The regulatory landscape is constantly changing, and the demands placed on the PRRC can vary significantly over time. Outsourcing the PRRC role offers companies the flexibility to scale their regulatory compliance efforts up or down as needed. For instance, during periods of intensive product development or regulatory scrutiny, a company may require more comprehensive compliance support. Conversely, during quieter periods, the level of support needed may be reduced. Outsourcing allows companies to adapt to these changing needs without the long-term commitments associated with employing a full-time, in-house PRRC. This flexibility can be particularly beneficial for companies with fluctuating workloads or those operating in highly dynamic industries.

Ensuring Compliance and Avoiding Penalties

Non-compliance with regulatory requirements can result in severe penalties, including fines, product recalls, and even the suspension of business operations. The PRRC plays a crucial role in mitigating these risks by ensuring that all regulatory requirements are met and that any potential issues are addressed promptly. Outsourcing the PRRC role to a reputable third-party provider can enhance this risk mitigation process. These providers have the experience and resources to conduct thorough compliance assessments, implement robust quality management systems, and respond swiftly to any regulatory changes or issues. This proactive approach can help companies avoid the costly consequences of non-compliance and maintain their reputation in the market.

Staying Ahead of Regulatory Changes

The IVD industry is characterized by rapid technological advancements and frequent regulatory updates. Staying ahead of these changes is critical for maintaining compliance and achieving business success. Outsourcing the PRRC role to a third-party provider ensures that companies have access to the latest regulatory knowledge and best practices. These providers invest in continuous education and professional development to stay current with regulatory changes. By leveraging their expertise, companies can continuously improve their compliance processes, adapt to new regulations seamlessly, and maintain a competitive edge in the market.

Giving you a Strategic Advantage

Outsourcing the PRRC role offers numerous benefits for companies operating in the medical device industry. From accessing specialized expertise and achieving cost savings to enhancing focus on core activities and adapting to changing needs, outsourcing provides a strategic advantage. By partnering with a reputable third-party provider, companies can ensure that their regulatory compliance efforts are handled by experts, mitigating risks and driving continuous improvement.

In an industry where compliance is critical to success, outsourcing the PRRC role can be a game-changer, allowing companies to navigate the complexities of regulatory requirements with confidence and achieve their business goals.

For further information on how we can support you, please contact us.

Written by Stuart Angell, Co-founder and Director of IVDeology, part of TEAM PRRC

Posted on

The AI Airlock Programme – The Potential of AI in Healthcare

The Potential of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare has the potential to improve patient outcomes, for example, by improving diagnosis or treatment selection. However, it is difficult to assess new and innovative AI technology using traditional trial techniques.

The AI Airlock

In Oct 2023, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) announced that they would set up a regulatory sandbox, the AI Airlock. This will provide software and AI medical device developers with virtual testing environments in which they can design and implement test protocols for their devices. There will be three different testing environments (Simulation airlock, Virtual airlock and Real-world airlock) and different factors will determine which testing environment will be most appropriate to each candidate and their device. MHRA’s AI Airlock webinar, presented in July 2024, provides more details about the AI Airlock.

By bringing together expertise from innovators, regulatory organisations including Approved Bodies, Government, the NHS and academia, the AI Airlock pilot program will allow for a collaborative approach. This will enable developers to generate robust evidence for their technology and assist in safe development and deployment of such devices.

Devices will need to meet one or more of the following eligibility criteria:

  • Has the potential to deliver benefits for patients
  • Device or concept application is innovative
  • Presents a regulatory challenge
  • Device is conceptually/developmental robust and ready to be trialled.

Four to six candidates will be recruited to join the pilot cohort and there is no fee for application or participation in the pilot program. Candidates will need to commit resource to the pilot program and are expected to fund their own studies and delivery of any Airlock testing, including accessing relevant data sets. Whilst this pilot phase of the AI Airlock will run until April 2025, candidates should expect to complete their individual Airlock testing within 6 months.

Learnings from this first pilot programme will inform future Airlock phases and the outputs will include:

  • Project Reports from each candidate project team,
  • An Airlock Sandbox report of learnings to inform future guidance and implications for the regulatory framework,
  • A programme evaluation report sharing learnings on the use of regulatory sandboxes. 

Application to the MHRA

This is a great chance for software and AI medical device developers to obtain advice from regulators whilst they experiment and testing their device in controlled and safe environments. Participation in the programme also offers developers an opportunity to have a part in informing the future GB regulatory framework on software and AI medical devices.   

Candidates can now apply to the MHRA to join the AI Airlock pilot program by completing the application form and returning it to [email protected]  before 07 October 2024.

If you’re looking at developing an AI product, or any other diagnostic device, please do get in touch as we can support you from idea to design and market – you can contact us here for a complimentary introduction chat

Written by Tsz Wai Woo, Regulatory specialist at IVDeology

Posted on

Near-patient Testing – Is it the Future for Diagnostics?

There has been a lot of discussion surrounding the focus of treatment within primary care.  The NHS published guidance in August 2023 for integrating point of care IVD’s (NHS England » Integrating in vitro point of care diagnostics: guidance for urgent community response and virtual ward services).  The Labour Party’s recent manifesto for the 2024 General Election stated that “Labour’s reforms will shift our NHS away from a model geared towards late diagnosis and treatment, to a model where more services are delivered in local communities” and “The National Health Service needs to move to a Neighbourhood Health Service, with more care delivered in local communities to spot problems earlier. To achieve this, we must over time shift resources to primary care and community services.”  (Change Labour Party Manifesto 2024).  Whilst this is good news for patients, it is not as simple as changing the location of the testing – there will be implications for the IVD industry in order to meet these proposals.

The In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/746, ‘IVDR’) defines a “device for near-patient testing” as “any device that is not intended for self-testing but is intended to perform testing outside a laboratory environment, generally near to, or at the side of, the patient by a health professional.”

During Design & Development, IVD manufacturers have to determine the use environment and end users within their intended purpose.  It is then their responsibility to demonstrate that the device is safe and effective when used in these environments by these intended end users and therefore there will be a number of additional requirements that need to be considered for devices intended for near-patient testing.

Performance Requirements:

The performance testing conducted will need to demonstrate that effective and reliable testing outside of the traditional controlled laboratory environments.  Considerations such as the following will need to be considered:

  • Use Environment Testing:

Annex I section 9.4 states “The characteristics and performances of the device shall be specifically checked in the event that they may be affected when the device is used for the intended use under normal conditions:

(b) for devices for near-patient testing, performances obtained in relevant environments (for example, patient home, emergency units, ambulances).

Testing of the device will therefore need to be conducted in the intended use environments. Manufacturers will need to show that the test can be used reliably in the environments that they indicate that the test can be used in. This could be, for example, doctor’s surgeries, A&E departments, patient’s homes or in ambulances.  Any conditions specific for these environments would need to be considered e.g. vibrations or temperature fluctuations for devices intended to be used on an ambulance.

  • Usability Studies:

Annex I section 19.1 states that “Devices intended for self-testing or near-patient testing shall be designed and manufactured in such a way that they perform appropriately for their intended purpose taking into account the skills and the means available to the intended user and the influence resulting from variation that can be reasonably anticipated in the intended user’s technique and environment. The information and instructions provided by the manufacturer shall be easy for the intended user to understand and apply in order to correctly interpret the result provided by the device and to avoid misleading information. In the case of near-patient testing, the information and the instructions provided by the manufacturer shall make clear the level of training, qualifications and/or experience required by the user.

It is important for manufacturers to have designed their device in such a way as to ensure that the intended end users can successfully use the device.  Therefore it is vital that manufacturers conduct usability studies with their target end users who are often not laboratory trained personnel.  This can then be used to demonstrate that consistent results can be obtained by these target end users, determine if the instructions provided with the device are adequate and help to identify if any training is required for the end users before the device can be used reliably.

Labelling Requirements:

The IVDR has also introduced specific labelling requirements for NPT (near patient testing) devices, including:

  • Devices labelled as Near-Patient Testing: The device label must indicate that the device is for near-patient testing.  Although there are currently no symbols for this within ISO 15223-1:2021 Medical devices – Symbols to be used with information to be supplied by the manufacturer, MedTech Europe has provided some suggested symbols that can be used to indicate near-patient testing (New IVD symbols for compliance with the IVDR – MedTech Europe).
  • Individual Instructions for Use: Each individual device must be accompanied by its own instructions for use (IFU).  For devices for professional use within a laboratory setting, if multiple devices were supplied then a single copy of the IFU could be provided if agreed by the purchaser.  This is not allowed for devices intended for near-patient testing.
  • Paper-Based Instructions: According to Annex I 20.1(f) of the IVDR, the instructions for use must be provided in a physical paper format for near-patient tests, and, unlike laboratory based professional use devices, cannot be provided in electronic format.
  • Language Requirements: The languages that the Member States require for the device label and instructions for use for near-patient testing may be different to those for professional use only tests.  This may add more translation costs on to manufacturers to access different markets.

The labelling provided must be appropriate to the device, its intended use, and the technical knowledge, experience, education, or training of the intended users.  This will need to be considered by manufacturers when designing the labelling and tested during usability studies.

Notified Body Assessment

Whilst devices for near-patient testing are classified in their own right according to Annex VIII rule 4(b), the notified body assessment is slightly different.  For Class B & Class C devices, the technical documentation of all devices for near-patient testing has to be assessed rather than the notified bodies sampling one technical file per generic device group or device category. Where a manufacturer has a number of devices for near-patient testing the increase of upfront cost to have their devices assessed will need to be considered.

Final thoughts

Whilst near-patient testing seems like a real win for patients and the direction of travel that the diagnostic industry is heading, this does provide some challenges for manufacturers.  The additional burden to demonstrate that the device is effective and reliable when used outside of a laboratory setting and the potential increased upfront costs of conformity assessment is something that needs to be considered before being able to place the device on the market.  For Great Britain, although the UK MDR 2002 does not specifically call out devices for near-patient testing currently, the indications from the MHRA on the future regulations is that it will be similar to the IVD Regulation with the new Essential Requirements being based on the General Safety & Performance Requirements.  This is likely therefore to mean that the additional requirements for these types of devices will also be required here.  However, if done correctly, near-patient testing will enable quicker diagnoses for patients and hopefully therefore better patient outcomes, which is ultimately what the IVD industry wants to support.

If you’d like to discuss near-patient testing or any of the compliance services that come along with it, from design and development to regulatory services, you can speak to us by dropping an email to [email protected] or book time with us via this link for when best suits you

Posted on

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

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