Team-NB clarifies CDx changes under IVDR Annex IX 5.2

What the new Team-NB paper covers

Team-NB has adopted an updated position paper (Version 2, 22 Oct 2025) clarifying which changes to companion diagnostics (CDx) under IVDR Annex IX, section 5.2 must be reported to the Notified Body (NB) and when consultation with the medicinal products authority (EMA or relevant national authority) is required. Under Annex IX 5.2(f), manufacturers must inform their NB before making changes that affect performance, intended use, or suitability of the device in relation to the medicinal product. The NB then decides whether a new conformity assessment is needed or a supplement to the EU technical documentation certificate is sufficient, and whether consultation with the medicinal products authority is required.

The paper also notes that manufacturers are responsible for determining if a change requires consultation and must document and justify a decision not to consult; justifications must be available to competent authorities on request. In general, a change that requires consultation should be considered reportable to the NB.

Legacy CDx under Article 110(3)

For legacy CDx (per MDCG 2022-8), significant changes to design or intended purpose cause loss of legacy status (per MDCG 2022-6) and trigger a new IVDR conformity assessment involving a NB and a consultation with the medicinal products authority.

How Team-NB categorizes changes (with examples)

The annex introduces a practical flow that first asks: Does the anticipated change affect the CDx’s suitability for the medicinal product? Depending on the answer, changes fall into three groups.

1) No EMA/National authority consultation required

(“NO” path in the flow; changes out of scope of medicinal product authority consultation)
Examples:

  • Change in critical raw material or its supplier
  • Platform transfer (e.g., validation on a new NGS platform)
  • Extension of CDx shelf-life
  • New supplier for a reagent
  • New place of market in distant sales

2) Follow-up consultation (supplement) — change within the scope of the original consultation

Examples:

  • New limitation in use of the CDx (e.g., cross-reactivity)
  • Medicinal product restriction impacting the CDx claim
  • Large-panel NGS tumour profiling device: addition of tissue type for an existing INN
  • Changes to analytical parameters of the CDx
  • Change in reagent presentation (e.g., liquid vs lyophilized) that impacts the CDx claim

3) Initial consultation (new conformity assessment) — change outside the scope of the original consultation

Examples:

  • Medicinal product extension impacting the CDx claim
  • Addition of a new sample type that changes intended purpose
  • Addition of a new/expanded target patient population
  • Large-panel NGS tumour profiling device: additional INNs after initial certification
  • Addition of additional mutations with outcome data

Important: Team-NB stresses that the annex examples are illustrative, and final determinations are case-specific based on detailed evaluation.

Practical takeaways for CDx teams

  • Treat changes that likely affect design or intended purpose as reportable and assess them with supporting evidence.
  • Document your consultation decision (including rationale for no consultation) and keep it ready for competent authorities.
  • For legacy CDx, avoid significant changes to design/intended purpose unless you’re prepared for loss of legacy status and a new IVDR assessment with consultation.
  • Refer to the EMA homepage (or relevant EU/EEA medicinal product authority) for process details on consultations.

Why this matters

This Team-NB paper gives CDx manufacturers and their partners a shared interpretation baseline with Notified Bodies and medicinal product authorities, reducing ambiguity around when to notify the NB and when to seek EMA/national consultation after a change. The included flow and examples help teams pre-classify changes and plan evidence/consultation pathways efficiently.

Need a CDx-focused partner?

If you’re planning or assessing CDx changes under IVDR and want a clear pathway through NB reporting and EMA/national consultations, talk to MDx CRO—a consultancy dedicated to companion diagnostics strategy, clinical evidence, and regulatory execution.

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

MDx CRO at MPP 2025: Aligning Companion Diagnostics and Drug Development under IVDR

Precision medicine needs alignment, not lighter rules

Europe’s precision medicine ecosystem advances when diagnostics and medicines move in lockstep. The real bottleneck is not regulation itself; it is the structural divergence between the Clinical Trials Regulation and the IVDR. In our work across oncology and rare disease programmes, we repeatedly see how separate clocks, committees, documentation and reporting streams create avoidable friction. Our message at MPP 2025 was simple: bring both tracks together from the start and design one plan that satisfies clinical utility and regulatory rigor at the same time.

CDx and drug trials: bridging IVDR and CTR

When a biomarker guides enrolment or treatment and the assay is not CE-marked for that purpose, Article 58 triggers a performance study alongside the medicinal trial. That study’s endpoints, analytical validation and risk–benefit narrative must be coherent with the drug protocol, because outcomes like PFS, OS and ORR depend on the test defining the right population. Misalignment costs time; EFPIA’s 2023 evidence shows many sponsors facing six to twelve-month delays linked to IVDR requirements, which ultimately pushes patient access further out.

What MDx CRO presented at MPP 2025

At the Medtech & Pharma Platform Annual Conference on 16 September 2025 at the Novartis Campus in Basel, Carlos Galamba, CEO at MDx CRO, joined the session “IVDs, CDx & Personalized Medicine: Moving from Compliance to Innovation,” chaired by Fatima Bennai-Sanfourche of Bayer and Andreas Emmendoerffer of Roche. The panel brought together Antonella Baron from the European Medicines Agency, Heike Möhlig-Zuttermeister of TÜV SÜD, and patient advocate David Haerry of Positive Council Switzerland, alongside MDx.

Evidence on delays and the impact on patients

The data are unambiguous: EFPIA’s survey indicates 43 percent of companies estimated six to twelve-month delays due to IVDR, with downstream consequences for trial starts and patient inclusion across major disease areas. Every month lost to mis-sequenced processes or unclear governance is a month patients wait for targeted therapies.

Signals from regulators, notified bodies, and patient advocates

The discussion reflected a clear appetite for convergence. EMA perspectives on embedding companion diagnostics under IVDR, TÜV SÜD’s insights on conformity assessment for CDx, and the patient community’s call for earlier access all point in the same direction: coordinated planning and earlier dialogue across agencies, notified bodies and sponsors.

Key insights from the MPP panel and fellow presenters

Compliance versus innovation is the wrong debate. The practical path forward is compliance and innovation together: a single evidence plan, shared endpoints, and a unified risk–benefit narrative that treats the diagnostic and the drug as interdependent elements of one therapy journey. That is how companion diagnostics under IVDR accelerate, rather than delay, precision medicine.

How MDx CRO accelerates CDx from design to approval

MDx builds one cross-functional plan from day one, aligning clinical and device protocols, mapping Article 58 triggers, and sequencing submissions so site start-up and “first sample tested” are not held back by documentation gaps. Our teams scrutinise analytical validation, prepare CPSPs and Annex XIV packages aligned to ISO 20916, and train investigators on device-specific safety reporting and sample flows across multilingual EU sites. This integrated approach has delivered a consistent approval track record for CDx submissions.

Operational playbook for combined studies in Europe

Effective combined studies require clear governance between drug and device sponsors, modular and wave submissions across Member States, separate informed consents for the CDx component where appropriate, and proactive scientific advice with EMA or NCAs for borderline cases. With local regulatory intelligence and language capability across Europe, we coordinate roles and documentation so CTR and IVDR remain synchronised throughout the study lifecycle.

Acknowledgment to MPP and our co-presenters

Our thanks to the Medtech & Pharma Platform Association for convening this timely discussion and to the session chairs and speakers who brought regulatory, conformity assessment and patient perspectives to the same table: Fatima Bennai-Sanfourche, Andreas Emmendoerffer, Antonella Baron, Heike Möhlig-Zuttermeister and David Haerry.

Partner with MDx CRO to make CDx work under IVDR

If your programme depends on biomarker-driven enrolment or treatment decisions, partner with a team that speaks CTR and IVDR fluently. MDx CRO compresses timelines, de-risks submissions and delivers companion diagnostics that make precision medicine real for the patients who need it most

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