EU Q&A Guide: Amendments to MDR and IVDR Transitional Provisions

In our latest article, MDx offers a comprehensive summary of the European Commission’s Q&A document, focusing on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2023/607, which amends transitional provisions for specific medical devices and in vitro diagnostic devices under Regulations (EU) 2017/745 and (EU) 2017/746.

The EU Q&A document provides further clarity to the MDR/IVDR amendment, which aims to maintain public health protection, patient safety, prevent medical device shortages, and preserve existing quality and safety standards.

This amending regulation extends the timeline for manufacturers and notified bodies to complete conformity assessments in line with the MDR and removes the ‘sell-off’ date in the MDR and IVDR to prevent unnecessary disposal of safe devices. The document’s responses consider the amendment’s objectives and seek to optimize the extended MDR transitional period.

Part A – Scope of the extension of the MDR transitional period

Which devices can benefit from the extended transitional period?

  • Only ‘legacy devices’ can benefit from the extended transitional period, which includes class I devices under Directive 93/42/EEC (MDD) and devices covered by a valid EC certificate issued in accordance with Directive 90/385/EEC (AIMDD) or the MDD prior to 26 May 2021.

Can devices that have already been certified in accordance with the MDR benefit from extended transitional period?

  • Yes, provided their MDD/AIMDD certificates have not been withdrawn by the notified body. ‘Legacy devices’ and corresponding MDR compliant devices can be placed on the market in parallel until the end of the relevant transitional period.

What about ‘legacy devices’ for which the manufacturer does not wish to apply under the MDR?

  • Manufacturers are not obliged to apply for their ‘legacy devices’ under the MDR. If they do not lodge an application for conformity assessment by 26 May 2024, the transitional period will end on that date.

Which classification rules apply to determine whether the extended transitional period ends on 31 December 2027 or on 31 December 2028?

  • The classification rules laid down in Annex VIII to the MDR apply to determine the end date of the transitional period based on the device’s risk class.

Does the extended transitional period also apply to custom-made devices?

  • A specific transitional period for class III custom-made implantable devices has been introduced by the new Article 120(3f) MDR, allowing them to be placed on the market without the relevant certificate until 26 May 2026, provided certain conditions are met.

If a certificate has expired before 20 March 2023 and a competent authority has granted a derogation in accordance with Article 59 MDR or has applied Article 97 MDR, how long is the transitional period?

  • The device benefits from the full transitional period until 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, as applicable, provided the conditions set out in Article 120(3c) MDR are fulfilled. The certificate is deemed to be valid until the end of the applicable transitional period, unless it is withdrawn.

Part B – Evidence of extended transitional period

How can the manufacturer demonstrate that its legacy device benefits from the extension of the transitional period?

  • The EU Q&A document clarifies that the amendments to MDR/IVDR and the extension to the transitional period and the certificate’s validity is automatic by law, provided certain conditions are met. Manufacturers can demonstrate the validity of the certificate to third parties through different means, including:
  • A self-declaration confirming that the conditions for the extension are fulfilled and stating the end date of the transition period, which could be based on a harmonized template.
  • A ‘confirmation letter’ issued by the notified body stating the receipt of the manufacturer’s application for conformity assessment and the conclusion of a written agreement. The confirmation should clearly identify the devices and certificates covered by the extension and could be based on a harmonized template issued without extra costs.
  • Competent authorities can issue certificates of free sale for the duration of the extended certificate validity.
  • The European Commission will update its factsheets to explain the functioning of the extended transition period for competent authorities in non-EU/EEA countries, healthcare professionals, healthcare institutions, and the procurement ecosystem.

Part C – Conditions to be fulfilled to benefit from the extended MDR transition period

What are the necessary elements of a formal application lodged by the manufacturer?

  • The application should include the elements listed in the relevant conformity assessment as referred to in Annexes IX to XI to the MDR, excluding documentation not needed for the conclusion of the written agreement. The application must clearly identify the manufacturer and the devices covered by the application. The manufacturer should provide a timeline for possible submission of the individual technical documentation and any other relevant information.

What are the necessary elements of a written agreement between the manufacturer and the notified body?

  • The written agreement should be based on the formal application lodged by the manufacturer and include a schedule for the submission of relevant documentation, such as the full technical documentation for all devices covered by the application.

What is the meaning of “device intended to substitute that device”?

  • A device intended to substitute the legacy device will usually differ from the legacy device due to significant changes in its design or intended purpose. The manufacturer is responsible for determining the substitute device and explaining the link to the substituted legacy device.

Which evidence does the manufacturer have to provide for having put in place a QMS in accordance with the MDR?

  • Manufacturers must draw up the documentation on its QMS, which needs to be part of the application for conformity assessment

Do manufacturers, which have lodged an application for conformity assessment and have concluded a written agreement with a notified body before 20 March 2023, have to lodge a new application and/or conclude a new written agreement?

  • No. Applications lodged prior to the entry into force of the amending Regulation 2023/607 (i.e., 20 March 2023) remain valid and are sufficient for fulfilling the condition set out in Article 120(3c), point (e) MDR. No new written agreement needs to be signed either.

Part D – Appropriate surveillance to be performed by notified bodies

What are the necessary elements of the arrangement for the transfer of the surveillance from the notified body that issued the MDD/AIMDD certificate to the MDR notified body?

  • The arrangement should follow the same principles outlined in Article 58(1) MDR, including the transfer of relevant documentation and addressing the possibility of the MDR notified body to suspend or withdraw a certificate issued by the MDD/AIMDD notified body, where duly justified.

What does the limitation ‘where practicable’ imply?

  • It takes into account cases where the notified body that issued the relevant certificate under the MDD/AIMDD might be unable to sign the contract, e.g., due to termination of business. A written agreement between the manufacturer and the MDR notified body is still required.

Which notified body is responsible for carrying out the appropriate surveillance when a written agreement in accordance with Article 120(3c), point e, MDR is signed between the manufacturer and a notified body designated under the MDR?

  • The notified body that issued the relevant certificate under the MDD/AIMDD continues to be responsible for the appropriate surveillance until 26 September 2024, after which the notified body that signed the agreement will become responsible for the appropriate surveillance.

In case there is an arrangement for the transfer of the surveillance to a different notified body designated under MDR, what are the implications on the labeling concerning the notified body’s identification number?

  • Legacy devices can continue to be placed on the market and made available without changes to the labeling, including CE marking, indicating the number of the notified body that issued the certificate under the Directive. However, the manufacturer may decide to modify the labeling of legacy devices indicating the number of the notified body to which a formal application under the MDR has been lodged, if practically feasible.

Is the NB, which issued the certificate in accordance with Article 120(3b) of MDR, legally obliged to continue to carry out the surveillance of the products concerned until the end of the new transitional period or until the manufacturer has transferred this surveillance obligation to an MDR NB? May this NB deny the manufacturer the use of its NB number?

  • The previous notified body must continue the surveillance until 26 September 2024 at the latest. Unless otherwise specified in the tripartite agreement, the use of the number of the notified body that issued the certificate must not be denied until the end of the transition period.

Part E – Deletion of the ‘sell-off’ date

Which devices will benefit from the removal of the ‘sell-off’ date?

  • Medical devices that have been placed on the market prior to 26 May 2021 in accordance with the MDD/AIMDD or after 26 May 2021 during the transitional period provided for in Article 120 MDR (i.e. until 31 December 2027 or 31 December 2028, as applicable) will benefit from the removal of the ‘sell-off’ date. They may continue to be made available on the market or put into service without any limitation in time without prejudice to the device’s possible shelf-life or expiry date.
  • Similarly, in vitro diagnostic medical devices that have been placed on the market prior to 26 May 2022 in accordance with the IVDD or after 26 May 2022 during the transitional period provided for in Article 110 IVDR (i.e. until 26 May 2025, 26 May 2026 or 26 May 2027, as applicable) will also benefit from the removal of the ‘sell-off’ date. These IVD devices may continue to be made available on the market or put into service without any limitation in time without prejudice to the device’s possible shelf-life or expiry date.

Please note this article is intended as a summary, to access the full Q&A document, please consult the original source provided by the commission.

How can MDx help?

MDx CRO is a leading quality, regulatory and contract research (CRO) consulting company dedicated to the medical device and diagnostic sectors.

MDx can help medical device & IVD manufacturers navigate the new requirements introduced by the amendment to the MDR and IVDR legislation through Regulation (EU) 2023/607. Our team of experts can provide comprehensive guidance and support to ensure your company’s compliance with the extended transitional period, updated classification rules, and other relevant aspects of the legislation.

We can assist with the following key areas:

  • Determining the eligibility of your devices to benefit from the extended transitional period.
  • Preparing and submitting formal applications for conformity assessment in accordance with the MDR, including the necessary elements for a written agreement with the notified body.
  • Assisting with the transfer of surveillance from the notified body that issued the MDD/AIMDD certificate to the MDR notified body, ensuring a smooth transition and continuous market access for your devices.
  • Helping manufacturers identify substitute devices and ensure compliance with the amended regulations.
  • Providing support for the implementation of a Quality Management System (QMS) in accordance with the MDR, including the preparation of relevant documentation.

Our experienced team at MDx is well-equipped to help you understand and meet the new requirements introduced by this amendment to the MDR and IVDR legislation, ensuring that your medical devices remain compliant and can continue to be placed on the market without disruption.

Contact us today for a consultation with our medical device experts.

Industry Insights & Regulatory Updates

IVDR technical documentation guidance released by Team-NB

If you are still undecided on which Notified Body (NB) to choose or you are in the early stages of development, Team-NB has just released this best practice guidance Guidance for the Submission of the IVDR Technical Documentation under Annex II and III. This is a must-read for anyone in this position!

By following this unified approach, manufacturers can ensure that their IVD technical documentation meets the regulatory requirements of the IVDR, regardless of which NB they eventually choose.

However, if you have already selected a NB, it is important to remember that each NB will have their own specific guidance and nuances that need to be taken into account when preparing your IVDR technical documentation. Nonetheless, this guidance document is a great starting point and can help ensure that your technical documentation is of a high standard, regardless of which NB you choose.

Medical devices have to meet strict regulatory requirements to ensure their safety and performance. In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) medical devices are no exception, and their manufacturers must demonstrate conformity to General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR) through technical documentation.

To ensure a unified approach to IVDR technical documentation submissions, Team NB members reviewed best practice guidance documents submitted by individual notified body members. The result is a comprehensive guidance document aligned with the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (EU) 2017/746.

IVDR Technical Documentation Submission

Manufacturers of all classes of IVD medical devices must prepare technical documentation that demonstrates conformity to GSPRs according to the EU IVDR 2017/746. The technical documentation must reflect the current status of the IVD medical device through application of the manufacturer’s Quality Management System (QMS). It must be prepared in a language acceptable to the reviewing organization, whether it be a notified body or regulatory authority.

The IVDR technical documentation reflects the status of the IVD medical device at a particular moment in time, such as the moment of premarket submission or when requested for post-market purposes.

MDx CRO can help you prepare high-quality IVDR technical documentation that meets the expectations of Notified Bodies and ensures compliance with the IVDR

Highlights of Team-NB guidance

Team-NB is an organization dedicated to promoting transparency and harmonization among notified bodies in Europe, which is a fundamental aspect for the development and certification of medical devices. You can see in their member page which Notified Bodies are part of Team-NB. The largest Notified Bodies are all represented.
The group supports the implementation of new regulations and provide guidance documents to ensure all members are meeting the same high standards of quality and compliance – essentially ensuring there is a level playing field when it comes to Notified Body expectations for compliance.

Key points to consider in your submission

Incomplete submissions and lack of cohesive structure of the IVRD technical documentation are the most common reasons for delays in technical documentation reviews by notified bodies. To avoid delays and improve submissions, manufacturers should consider the following practical points:

  • Communication with the notified body before an application is lodged: Manufacturers should clarify the language requirements, documentation labelling requirements, and submission methods with their notified body. General administrative information about the manufacturer should be provided in the technical documentation, including legal manufacturer name and address, EU Authorized Representative, and subcontractors’ location, EMDN coding, NANDO coding, and whether the device is made available to the market through distance sales.
  • IVDR Technical documentation submission: The technical documentation must be presented in a clear, organized, readily searchable, and unambiguous manner. It must include regulatory references to the applicable regulatory requirements of the EU IVDR.
  • The most recently updated comprehensive reports (including clinical performance studies) and data should be included. Abbreviated or partial test reports are not considered acceptable. Verification reports should be complete.
  • The technical documentation must document how the manufacturer ensures compliance with every applicable GSPR. Information duplication for multiple documents, such as device description, should be correct throughout all areas where this information is duplicated.
  • The data in the technical documentation must be consistent with the data provided in the respective application forms. Valid justifications should always be provided or accompanied where there are deficiencies in the requested data.
  • As part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex II, the manufacturer shall keep up to date a list of all Unique Device Identifiers (UDIs) assigned.

If you’re still undecided on which Notified Body to choose or you’re in the early stages of development, this best practice guidance by Team-NB is a must-read!

Conclusion

IVDR Technical documentation submissions must demonstrate conformity to GSPR through clear and concise documentation of development, design, and manufacturing processes. Manufacturers should communicate with their notified body before submitting their technical documentation and ensure that it is presented in a clear, organized, readily searchable, and unambiguous manner.

They should provide comprehensive reports and data, document compliance with every applicable GSPR, and ensure data consistency throughout the technical documentation. By following these best practice guidance, manufacturers can streamline the IVDR technical documentation review process and expedite their IVD medical device’s regulatory approval and ensure that their technical documentation meets the regulatory requirements of the IVDR, regardless of which NB they eventually choose.

However, if a manufacturer has already selected a Notified Body, it is important to remember that each NB will have their own specific guidance and nuances that need to be taken into account when preparing technical documentation. Nonetheless, this guidance document is a great starting point and can help manufacturers ensure that their technical documentation is of a high standard, regardless of which NB they choose.

How can MDx CRO help with your IVDR Technical Documentation?

MDx is an IVD Contract Research Organization (CRO) that can help IVD device manufacturers with the preparation of a complete set of the IVDR technical documentation including:

  • Risk Management documentation
  • Design & Manufacturing documentation
  • Device Description and Intended Purpose reviews
  • Labelling and information supplied with the device
  • General Safety & Performance Requirements (GSPR) checklists
  • Clinical Evidence: Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP), Scientific Validity Report (SVR), Analytical Performance Report (APR), Clinical Performance Report (CPR), Performance Evaluation Report (PER),
  • Post Market Surveillance (PMS) documentation, including PMPF, PMS reports and Periodic Safety Update Reports (PSURs)
  • Summary of Safety and Performance (SSP) for classes C and D IVDs
  • UDI
  • Declaration of Conformity (DoC)
  • and more…

MDx has extensive experience in preparing IVDR technical documentation that meets Notified Body expectations. MDx works closely with its clients to ensure that their technical documents for IVDs are designed and written in compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines.

Contact MDx CRO and start preparing IVDR compliant, high-quality technical documentation that meets Notified Body expectations!

Written by:
Carlos Galamba

Carlos Galamba

CEO

Senior regulatory leader and former BSI IVDR reviewer with deep experience in CE marking high-risk IVDs, companion diagnostics, and IVDR implementation.
Industry Insights & Regulatory Updates

What to Consider When Developing an IVD Clinical Performance Study for IVDR Compliance

In vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices are essential in healthcare as they provide accurate and reliable diagnostic information to healthcare providers. The development of an IVD device involves several stages, including research and development, design and prototyping, verification and validation, regulatory approval, and commercialization.

One of the critical steps in IVD development is the conduct of an IVDR clinical performance study to generate reliable and meaningful data to support regulatory approval and the device’s commercial success. In Europe, the in-vitro diagnostic regulation (EU IVDR) is now in force and all new products to market must meet very strict requirements of clinical performance.

The role of ISO 20916 in IVDR clinical performance studies

The design and execution of an IVD clinical performance study are critical to its success, and several factors must be considered to ensure that the study generates reliable and meaningful data. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed ISO 20916, a standard that provides guidance on the design and conduct of clinical studies for IVD medical devices. The standard is intended to help manufacturers, regulators, and other stakeholders ensure that IVD clinical performance studies are designed and conducted in a consistent and scientifically rigorous manner.

ISO 20916 covers several important aspects, including study design, sample size determination, selection of appropriate endpoints, statistical analysis, and reporting of study results. The standard emphasizes the importance of designing studies that are appropriate for the intended use of the IVD device and that incorporate good clinical practice (GCP) principles.

The plan should specify the study objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria for study participants, study endpoints, and statistical analysis plan, amongst many other requirements. It should also include procedures for data management and quality control to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data collected.

Another important aspect of ISO 20916 is the requirement to ensure the safety and well-being of study participants. The standard emphasizes the importance of obtaining informed consent from study participants and protecting their privacy and confidentiality. The standard also requires that studies be conducted in compliance with ethical principles and regulatory requirements.

Alignment with EU IVDR

In addition to ISO 20916, the implementation of the EU IVDR has increased the importance of conducting IVD clinical performance studies as they are required for regulatory compliance. The IVDR replaced the previous In Vitro Diagnostic Directive (IVDD) and introduced more stringent requirements for IVD devices, including clinical evidence requirements. IVD manufacturers are now required to demonstrate clinical evidence that supports a device’s intended purpose and its’ safety and performance. This is particularly important, because insufficient clinical evidence could ultimately lead to a product refusal at the Notified Body resulting in additional costs and delays to bringing product to market.

Amongst many requirements, an IVDR clinical performance study is designed and conducted in compliance with GCP principles. ISO 20916 has additional requirements, and both the regulation and the standard should be considered by all diagnostic manufacturers when developing clinical performance study plans or protocols.

How can MDx CRO help?

MDx is a Medical Device & IVD Contract Research Organization (CRO) that can help IVD device manufacturers with their clinical performance studies by providing a range of services, including:

  • study design
  • site selection
  • patient recruitment
  • study monitoring
  • data management
  • statistical analysis

MDx has extensive experience in conducting clinical performance studies for IVD devices and a deep understanding of the regulatory requirements for these studies. Our team of professionals is well-trained and experienced in managing all aspects of the study, from protocol development to study execution and data analysis. We work closely with our clients to ensure that their studies are designed and conducted in compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines and that they generate reliable and meaningful data.

Conclusion

Conducting an IVD clinical performance study is a critical step in the development and commercialization of an IVD device. By following best practices, working with experienced professionals, and selecting the right CRO, IVD device manufacturers can generate reliable and meaningful data that can support regulatory approval and the device’s commercial success, ultimately benefiting patients and healthcare providers. Adherence to the IVDR and the ISO 20916 standard can help ensure that the data generated is acceptable for regulatory submission and meets the safety and performance requirements for IVDs.

Industry Insights & Regulatory Updates