ISO 20916:2024 What You Need to Know for Clinical Performance Studies in 2026

February 2, 2026

Planning a clinical performance study under IVDR in 2026 requires more than regulatory awareness, it requires strategic alignment with ISO 20916:2024.

This article breaks down what ISO 20916:2024 means in practice, how it interacts with IVDR, the key differences you must consider before designing your study, and how to position your project for regulatory success.

What changed with ISO 20916:2024 and how it affects your study strategy

ISO 20916:2024, Clinical performance studies using specimens from human subjects: Good study practice, was first introduced in 2019. In March 2024, it was published as EN ISO 20916:2024, marking a major step in ISO 20916 2024 IVDR harmonization IVD studiesacross Europe. This update aligns clinical performance study requirements directly with the IVDR.

In today’s rapidly evolving IVD landscape, safety and performance remain top priorities. ISO 20916 provides a solid framework to ensure clinical performance studies are planned, executed, recorded, and reported with scientific rigor. Its goal is simple: ensure IVD studies are ethical, reliable, and aligned with regulatory expectations.

This standard supports robust study design, promotes high‑quality data generation, and strengthens compliance for IVD manufacturers navigating the IVDR.

Planning a clinical performance study in 2026?

Request access to our expert session on preparing a GDD clinical performance study under ISO 20916:2024.

Contact us to watch the replay

The Role of Annex ZA in IVDR Performance Studies

The March 2024 revision introduced a key milestone: Annex ZA, which formally harmonizes ISO 20916 with the IVDR. While the IVDR already referenced ISO 20916, the addition of Annex ZA creates a unified regulatory pathway for clinical performance studies.

Annex ZA bridges the remaining gaps between the standard and the regulation. As a result, manufacturers benefit from clearer expectations and a more predictable approval process.

EN ISO 20916:2024 was approved by CEN without modification, reinforcing its relevance for EU regulatory compliance. However, at the time of writing, official recognition of ISO 20916:2024 as an IVDR harmonized standard in the EU Official Journal is still pending.

Note: As of the date this article was written, the official recognition of ISO 20916:2024 as an IVDR harmonized standard for clinical performance studies in theEuropean Union’s Official Journal was awaiting confirmation.

How Annex ZA Connects ISO 20916:2024 with IVDR Requirements

1. Presumption of Conformity

Compliance with the ISO 20916 clauses listed in Table ZA.1 gives manufacturers a presumption of conformity with IVDR GSPRs. This presumption simplifies regulatory alignment across IVD clinical performance studies.

2. Definition Alignment

When definitions differ between ISO 20916 and the IVDR, Annex ZA prioritizes IVDR terminology. This ensures consistency across regulatory submissions.

3. Risk‑Management Updates

Annex ZA strengthens risk‑management expectations. It requires alignment with IVDR principles such as “reducing risks as far as possible.” It also notes that ISO 20916 does not include foreseeable misuse, while the IVDR does—requiring sponsors to bridge this gap.

4. Acceptable Risk Policies

Manufacturers must align acceptable risk decisions with specific GSPRs. Annex ZA also clarifies that while ISO 20916 excludes training as a risk‑reduction measure, the IVDR allows it.

ISO 20916 vs IVDR: A Practical Comparison for Study Design

Topic	ISO 20916	IVDR
Annex XIV studies	No specific terminology for surgically invasive sample taking	Recognizes surgically invasive sampling as Annex XIV study
Adverse events	Structured categorization (device-related / non-device-related, serious, anticipated)	Less prescriptive
CPSP	Detailed specimen requirements	Requires reference to state of the art
Monitoring	Prescriptive; allows rationale for remote monitoring	Requires independent monitor
Informed consent	Highly detailed framework	Less detailed

Where ISO 20916 and IVDR Align

Despite some differences, the ISO and IVDR frameworks remain closely aligned in key areas:
Clinical performance parameters: Nearly identical, except ISO 20916 omits expected values for normal and affected populations.
Ethical considerations: ISO 20916 provides more detail, defining responsibilities for sponsors and investigators.
Bias mitigation: ISO 20916 offers explicit direction on preventing population, protocol, and reference‑method bias.
Site qualification: More detailed under ISO 20916, specifying resources, equipment validation, and QMS expectations.
CPSR content: ISO 20916 includes additional requirements, especially for interventional studies.
Comparator devices: The standard requires clear listing with commercial name, manufacturer, and catalog number.
Investigator’s Brochure: Both the IVDR and ISO 20916 are aligned, though ISO adds more detail on risk‑benefit documentation.

Who Should Apply EN ISO 20916:2024 in 2026?

Manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic medical devices
In vitro diagnostic clinics and laboratories
Test centres for in vitro diagnostic medical devices
Regulatory authorities
IVDR Notified Bodies
IVD Clinical research organizations (CROs)
Investigators and sponsors

Advantages of Applying EN ISO 20916 in IVD Performance Studies

Robust Results: It ensures high-quality, accurate, and reliable data generation, pivotal for safe healthcare decisions.
Ethical Standards: It upholds the rights, safety, dignity, and well-being of study subjects.
Study Planning and Conduct: It facilitates the meticulous planning and execution of IVD performance studies, ensuring regulatory and ethical compliance alongside scientific validity.
Compliance and Clarity: It provides a framework for compliance with IVDR, clarifying roles and responsibilities of all parties involved.
Risk Management: It emphasizes subject safety, especially regarding specimen collection risks, and ensures data integrity.

Implications for Sponsors and CROs Conducting IVD Performance Studies

The integration of ISO 20916 with the IVDR, highlighted by the inclusion of Annex ZA, significantly transforms IVD clinical performance studies and CRO operations. This crucial alignment demands a comprehensive revision in study design, execution, and reporting methodologies, highlighting the importance of compliance with the unified ISO 20916 and IVDR standards. It emphasizes the need for robust quality and risk management systems and ethically responsible study development.

This evolution signifies more than standard adherence; it represents a commitment to elevating IVD performance and efficacy in line with the highest EU regulatory standards. It requires IVD stakeholders, including CROs, sponsors and manufacturers, to deeply understand and agilely apply these standards, not only for compliance but to set new quality and safety benchmarks in diagnostics.

This commitment is fundamental to advancing patient care and public health, marking a significant step forward in regulatory compliance and industry excellence.

Since its foundation, MDx CRO has consistently used ISO 20916 as the benchmark for all our IVD clinical performance studies. The release of Annex ZA and its harmonization with IVDR reinforces our status as the leading CRO for IVD clinical performance studies.

Achieving Success in IVD Clinical Performance Studies

At MDx CRO, we navigate the complexities of IVDR and the latest ISO 20916 revision for in vitro diagnostic (IVD) studies with unmatched expertise. Our commitment to rigorous clinical operations ensures that every clinical performance study meets all regulatory standards, incorporating strategic risk management and adaptability for maximum compliance and integrity.

Partnering with us offers manufacturers a significant advantage, rigorously evaluating IVDs to ensure adequate performance and safety, a critical component of regulatory approvals.

Choose MDx CRO for excellence in IVD clinical performance studies, driving success and enhancing patient outcomes. Contact us for a discussion today!

Frequently Asked Questions about ISO 20916:2024 in 2026

Does ISO 20916:2024 apply to all IVD performance studies under IVDR?

ISO 20916:2024 provides a structured framework for the design, conduct, recording, and reporting of clinical performance studies involving IVD medical devices. While IVDR sets the legal requirements, ISO 20916 supports sponsors in demonstrating compliance through a harmonized and internationally recognized standard. Not all studies are identical in scope or risk level, but for interventional and other performance studies involving risk to subjects, alignment with ISO 20916 is strongly recommended to ensure methodological and documentation consistency.

What is the practical relevance of Annex ZA in ISO 20916:2024?

Annex ZA explains the relationship between ISO 20916:2024 and the requirements of IVDR. It maps the clauses of the standard to the corresponding IVDR provisions, helping sponsors understand how applying the standard supports regulatory compliance. In practice, Annex ZA serves as a bridge between operational study conduct and regulatory expectations under IVDR.

Why is ISO 20916:2024 strategically important for sponsors in 2026?

In 2026, regulatory scrutiny around clinical evidence and performance data continues to increase. ISO 20916:2024 offers a structured and prescriptive framework that reduces ambiguity in study design, monitoring, and documentation. For sponsors, early alignment with ISO 20916 can help minimize deficiencies during review, improve study robustness, and support smoother interactions with Notified Bodies.

Is ISO 20916:2024 mandatory under IVDR?

ISO 20916:2024 is not a regulation. IVDR is legally binding, whereas ISO 20916 is a standard. However, when recognized as harmonized, applying the standard provides a presumption of conformity with relevant IVDR requirements. Even where not mandatory, it is widely considered best practice for structuring clinical performance studies.

Written by:

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

High-tech European Parliament building with EU flag, modern glass architecture, representing advanced government infrastructure and innovation.

Navigating the IVDR CDx Certification Pathway

IVDR Lab Readiness: Step-by-Step Transition Checklist

IVD Clinical Trials: The Do’s and Don’ts

This image showcases IVD laboratory techniques and biotechnology innovation. There is hand whit a white glove handling medical devices.

Impact of the Health Services Pack on IVD manufacturers, labs/health institutions and sponsors of combined studies

European Union flags waving in front of modern office buildings representing MedTech innovation and regulatory environment.

EUDAMED Mandatory Timelines for MDR and IVDR

FDA Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) Regulation

October 4, 2023

The FDA Laboratory Developed Tests regulation marks one of the most significant shifts in U.S. diagnostic oversight in decades. The FDA’s new rule phases in full regulation of LDTs over four years, with no grandfathering. This change elevates the importance of IVD CROs, whose regulatory and clinical expertise will be critical as laboratories adapt to stringent new requirements. The rule represents a major transformation in the U.S. IVD landscape and will reshape how laboratories develop, validate, and maintain LDTs.

Introduction

On September 29, 2023, the FDA released a groundbreaking proposed rule that fundamentally redefines how the agency regulates Laboratory‑Developed Tests (LDTs). This proposal shifts LDTs out of decades of enforcement discretion and brings them fully under the FDA’s medical device framework.

Because LDTs are a subset of in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs), the new rule has sweeping implications for clinical laboratories, manufacturers, and the broader diagnostics industry. Under the FDA Laboratory Developed Tests regulation, LDTs will now be treated like other medical devices—requiring quality systems, medical device reporting, registration, listing, and in many cases, premarket review.

For stakeholders across the IVD sector, this change is significant.

Key Points to Consider as the FDA regulates LDTs

Expanded Definition of IVDs
The FDA proposes to explicitly classify LDTs as IVDs under 21 CFR 809.3.
This means LDTs will now fall under the same requirements as traditional IVD medical devices.
Phased, Four‑Year Implementation
The FDA will remove enforcement discretion in five stages over a four‑year timeline.
Each stage introduces new regulatory obligations for laboratories.
No Grandfather Clause
The proposal does not exempt existing LDTs. All LDTs (old and new) must eventually comply.
Test Categories Exempt from Enhanced Oversight
Certain test types, including forensic tests and HLA assays, are proposed for exemption.
Public Comment Period
Stakeholders were invited to submit comments through December 4, 2023.

Background on FDA Regulation for LDTs and IVDs

IVDs have traditionally been subject to rigorous regulatory scrutiny under various heads:

510(k) premarket notification or premarket approval (PMA)
Quality system regulation
Medical device reporting
Registration and listing
Labeling

LDTs, however, historically operated under enforcement discretion, receiving minimal oversight. This approach was based on the assumption that LDTs were low risk and used primarily within single laboratories.

That landscape has changed.

The Evolving Landscape of LDTs

Over the last 50 years, LDTs have become increasingly complex, widely used, and technically sophisticated. This evolution has driven demand for stronger oversight in areas such as:

Clinical validity
Analytical performance
Manufacturing consistency
Patient safety

The new FDA Laboratory Developed Tests regulation directly responds to these gaps. By redefining LDTs and removing enforcement discretion, the FDA aims to strengthen public health protections.

The Road Ahead: Key Regulatory Impacts

The phased implementation timeline will introduce major compliance requirements:

Medical Device Reporting

The first enforcement area to take effect.

Quality Systems Regulation

Expected three years after publication of the final rule.

Premarket Review

Introduced 3.5 to four years after the final rule, starting with high‑risk LDTs and expanding to moderate-and-low risk tests.

Labs performing LDTs must begin planning now. Clinical and analytical validation, documentation systems, and regulatory processes will all require upgrades.

Alignment With Europe’s IVDR Rollout

The FDA’s new approach mirrors developments in Europe under the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR). The IVDR already applies strict rules to in‑house tests and LDTs, requiring:

Complete Technical Documentation
A compliant Quality Management System
Performance evaluation and validation
Adherence to Article 5.5 requirements for in‑house devices

çUnder IVDR, an LDT cannot be used if an equivalent CE‑marked test exists. This forces laboratories to justify in‑house development and meet near‑manufacturer‑level standards.

Conclusion: An Industry in Transition

As experts in IVD quality, regulatory, and clinical operations, MDx CRO encourages laboratories and manufacturers to prepare now for the FDA Laboratory Developed Tests regulation. Although legal challenges may influence the timeline, increased oversight is inevitable, and already fully established within Europe under the IVDR.

Stakeholders should submit comments to the FDA by December 4, 2023, and begin strengthening their regulatory systems immediately.

Written by:

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

Navigating the IVDR CDx Certification Pathway

iso 20916 2024 ivdr harmonization ivd studies Detailed image of female researcher examining samples through a microscope in a modern laboratory, demonstrating advancements in MedTech innovation and research in healthcare technology.

ISO 20916:2024 What You Need to Know for Clinical Performance Studies in 2026

IVDR Lab Readiness: Step-by-Step Transition Checklist

IVD Clinical Trials: The Do’s and Don’ts

Impact of the Health Services Pack on IVD manufacturers, labs/health institutions and sponsors of combined studies

Companion Diagnostics IVD Consultancy within the EMA Framework: Comprehensive Guidance

August 8, 2023

The field of companion diagnostics IVD (CDx) represents a confluence of technological innovation, regulatory compliance, and patient care. As personalized medicine becomes an integral part of healthcare, the regulatory framework governing CDx, including the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR), has become more complex. This scenario calls for a specialized companion diagnostics consultancy. MDx CRO is at the forefront of this arena, offering expertise and guidance in the process for CDx consultation with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Notified Body preparation and IVDR compliance within the European Union (EU).

Companion Diagnostics IVD and their Role

CDx are in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests designed to provide information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding medicinal product. Their applications could include:

Identifying patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product.
Determining patients’ suitability for specific treatments.
Monitoring responses to ongoing treatments.

The Impact of IVDR on Companion Diagnostics

The IVDR sets out robust legal requirements for in vitro diagnostic medical devices, including CDx. Key aspects include:

Enhanced Patient Safety: Ensuring the quality and reliability of CDx IVDs.
Stricter Oversight: Increased scrutiny of the CDx development and approval process. Unlike the previous directive, CDx now require conformity assessment by a Notified Body, an independent organization designated to assess the compliance of medical devices and in-vitro diagnostics. In addition, CDx are also assessed by a medicines authority, most likely the EMA (European Medicines Agency), but a competent authority could also be involved .
Comprehensive Technical Documentation: Increased clinical evidence requirements are particularly notable in the IVDR. MDx CRO can help CDx manufacturers and their drug partners gather the necessary data to support their CDx application. This data may include clinical trial data (clinical performance data), analytical data, and safety data. Manufacturers must provide robust clinical evidence to demonstrate the performance, safety, and clinical utility of the CDx.

There are a number of other factors that can affect the approval process for CDx in the EU. These factors include:

The availability of data: Both the Notified Body and the EMA will need to have access to data from clinical trials that demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the CDx.
The complexity of the CDx: The more complex the CDx, the more difficult it will be to assess its safety and effectiveness.
The novelty of the CDx: If the CDx involves new technologies or indications, the EMA and the Notified Body will need to take a more cautious approach to its approval. Different scenarios will play a role on the extent of scrutiny involved, including co-developed CDx scenarios, follow-on CDx, and CDx already on the market under the old IVD directive.

Understanding the EMA Companion Diagnostics Consultation Procedure

The consultation procedure is initiated by the notified body when it receives an application from a CDx manufacturer. The medicinal product involved could be a medicine already authorised for marketing in the EU or a medicine undergoing approval. Aligning drug and diagnostic development processes can help to ensure that the results of the clinical trials are accurate and reliable, and that the medicine is safe and effective when used with the CDx.

Aligning timelines in the drug and diagnostic (CDx) development process can help to ensure that the clinical trials for the medicine are conducted in a way that is consistent with the intended use of the CDx.

Upon application for a CDx IVD approval, the notified body will submit a letter of intent to the EMA, along with a technical dossier that describes the CDx and the medicinal product.

The EMA will then appoint a rapporteur, who will be responsible for reviewing the technical dossier and issuing a scientific opinion on the suitability of the CDx for use with the medicinal product. The rapporteur will also consider the views of any other interested parties, such as the applicant for the medicinal product, the manufacturer of the CDx, and patient groups.

The EMA will provide its scientific opinion on the CDx aspects that relate to the medicine to the notified body. The notified body will then use the EMA’s opinion to make a decision on whether to grant the CE mark to the CDx, in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the in vitro diagnostics regulation (EU IVDR).

EMA procedure timetables play a major role in the success of the consultation and turn around times for responses can be extremely short. Manufacturers should factor this in as they plan for their CDx submissions. There is the possibility to request a pre-submission meeting which will include representatives from Notified Bodies, EMA and could also include the drug manufacturer – this is used strictly to align on procedural and timing considerations (it is not used to provide feedback on study design or the content of the technical documentation).

One of the key documents used in the consultation and submitted by the notified body to the EMA is the SSP (Summary of Safety and Performance). The EMA expects manufacturers to use the SSP template provided in MDCG 2022-9. A lot more detail is expected in the SSP when compared to the information provided in the IFU. For example, detail on concordance studies is needed, particularly for co-developed CDx when different versions of a diagnostic have been used throughout the clinical development program.

MDx CRO: Your Partner in Companion Diagnostics Consultancy

Our companion diagnostics consultancy services encompass every stage of development, approval, and post-market surveillance:

Guidance on IVDR Requirements: In-depth support in understanding and meeting the specific demands of IVDR as they relate to CDx. MDx CRO can help a diagnostics company identify the specific requirements that apply to its CDx. For example, the requirements for a CDx that is intended to assess a patient’s suitability for treatment may be different from the requirements for a CDx that is intended to be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment.
Preparation for Notified Body Assessment: Tailored strategies for successful assessment of a CDx under the IVDR: Assistance with compiling and submitting the necessary technical documentation and quality related documents.
Providing training to the manufacturer’s staff: MDx CRO can provide training to the manufacturer’s staff on the EMA’s requirements for CDx, as well as the notified body’s assessment process and expectations. This training will help to ensure that the manufacturer’s staff are prepared to answer any notified body questions and increase chances of success.
Stakeholder Communication: Facilitating communication with all relevant parties.
Global Perspective: Navigating international considerations for CDx in multi-country studies.
Post-Market Support: Focused on maintaining the highest standards through ongoing compliance monitoring with IVDR and other regulatory requirements. This includes implementing strong post-market surveillance processes and Post-Market Performance Follow-up (PMPF) evaluations, monitoring the CDx’s performance in real-world clinical settings, tracking and analyzing adverse events related to CDx usage, and conducting ongoing studies to evaluate the long-term impact and effectiveness of the CDx.

Why MDx CRO for Companion Diagnostics IVD Consultancy?

Expertise: Our in-depth knowledge of CDx, IVDR, and EU regulations offers unparalleled support.
Collaboration: Working closely with clients, we tailor our approach to meet specific needs.
Efficiency: Our insights and guidance save valuable time and resources, simplifying complex regulatory pathways.
Commitment: Our dedication to excellence, patient safety, and innovation sets us apart.

Navigating the multifaceted world of companion diagnostics in the EU, with the added complexity of IVDR, requires a dedicated and skilled partner. MDx CRO stands ready to be your guide in this critical journey, ensuring alignment with all regulatory standards. Reach out to explore how our companion diagnostics consultancy can be the key to unlocking your CDx potential in the EU’s dynamic regulatory environment.

Frequently Asked Questions on COmpanion Diagnostics Consultancy

What is a co-developed Companion Diagnostics in the context of EMA consultation?

A co-developed CDx is a device developed alongside a medicinal product for either initial authorization or a change of indication. This can include development during a pivotal clinical trial or a bridging study, with sufficient documentation to ensure performance alignment.

How does a follow-on CDx differ from a co-developed CDx?

A follow-on CDx seeks the same indication as the original CDx but is not developed in parallel with the medicinal product. The follow-on CDx targets the same biomarker but may not be based on the same technology. It should be highly comparable to the original in performance, safety, and effectiveness.

What documentation is required for a follow-on CDx?

Sufficient documentation must be provided for a follow-on CDx to prove that its analytical performance is comparable to the original CDx and that there’s no impact on clinical performance incompatible with the safe and effective use of the medicinal product.

How are devices transitioning from IVDD to IVDR handled?

Devices initially marketed under Directive 98/79/EC (IVDD) that transition to IVDR fall under the co-developed or follow-on scenarios, depending on how they were initially developed.

Is it possible to proceed with a single CDx consultation procedure for multiple authorized medicinal products and indications?

Yes, if a device’s intended purpose includes several authorized medicinal products and indications, it’s recommended to proceed with one single CDx consultation procedure. All concerned medicinal products should be listed in the intention to submit a letter by the Notified Body and in the application form.

Written by:

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

Companion diagnostic studies: BSI & TÜV SÜD Lead the Way in CDx Certification

medical device and ivd consulting services

Companion Diagnostics in Precision Medicine: Driving Targeted Therapies

Innovative MedTech research and development in a laboratory setting for advancing healthcare solutions.

MedTech Europe IVDR Clinical Evidence Requirements: Key Updates in the 3rd Edition

IVD analytical validation parameters under IVDR Annex I 9.1(a)

COMBINE Programme: Streamlining EU Combined Studies for Medicines, Devices, and Diagnostics

EU MDR 2017/745 for Dental Devices: Complete Guide (2026)

MDR Transition Period: Updated Q&A Document, Changes & Clarifications

July 20, 2023

The recent amendment of the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) through Regulation (EU) 2023/607 has introduced crucial changes to safeguard public health, prioritize patient safety, and prevent disruptions in healthcare services. The Q&A document regarding the extension of the MDR transition period and removal of the “sell-off” periods has been updated (July 2023) in response.

Key Changes to the Q&A Document on the MDR Transition Period

MDx CRO had previously published a comprehensive summary of the European Commission’s Q&A document.

The following questions in the Q&A document have undergone significant changes:

Q&A no 1: The Commission will provide flowcharts to assist manufacturers and other relevant parties in determining whether a device falls under the extended transitional period specified in Article 120 MDR.
Q&A no 2: Clarifies that a letter from a notified body regarding the certificate’s expiry or a controlled phase-out of production, mutually agreed upon by the notified body and the manufacturer before 20 March 2023, is not considered a certificate withdrawal.
Q&A no 7: Manufacturers need to provide a self-declaration confirming their compliance with the extension conditions and stating the end date of the transition period. They can include a “confirmation letter” from the notified body, which identifies the devices and certificates covered. Templates for the self-declaration and notified body’s confirmation letter are available at this link. Furthermore, an updated factsheet for competent authorities in non-EU/EEA countries explains the functioning of the extended transition period.
Q&A no 8: Clarifies that that when submitting information, notified bodies (as per Article 36(2) MDR) must have the capability to include the relevant (digital) document(s) in their own records. Simply having ‘read-only’ access to the manufacturer’s electronic data platform is not considered sufficient.
Q&A no 17: Manufacturers must inform the notified body about devices that require surveillance, especially if surveillance activities were discontinued due to certificate expiration before 20 March 2023. This information allows the notified body to conduct proper surveillance and make necessary arrangements with the manufacturer.

New Additions to the Q&A Document

The following questions have been newly introduced in the MDR Transition Period Q&A document:

Q&A no 6.1: If a competent authority grants a national derogation under Article 59 MDR or requires a manufacturer to follow the applicable conformity assessment procedure as per Article 97 MDR after 20 March 2023, the extended transitional period specified in Article 120(3a) MDR does not apply.
Q&A no 6.2: If the removal of the CE marking is a condition or consequence of the derogation granted by the competent national authority according to Article 59 of the MDR, the device may still be placed on the market with a CE marking, provided that all other conditions are met.
Q&A no 9.1: If a manufacturer withdraws the conformity assessment application or terminates the written agreement with the notified body after the deadlines, the extended transitional period ends. However, if the manufacturer switches to another notified body and fulfills all conditions, the transitional period continues. Updated documentation is necessary after the change, except when changing notified bodies due to non-compliance.
Q&A no 9.2: The manufacturer’s organization may undergo administrative changes, such as changes in name, address, or legal form, which generally do not impact the transitional period during the extended transition period. However, the transfer of devices from a manufacturer certified under MDD/AIMDD to another manufacturer intending to market them under MDR is not covered by the transitional period, unless both manufacturers are part of the same larger organization.
Q&A no 11.1: Legacy devices are not required to comply with the Unique Device Identification (UDI) requirements of the MDR during the extended transitional period. Even after May 26, 2024, when the manufacturer of the legacy device must have an MDR-compliant Quality Management System (QMS), UDI requirements will only apply if UDI assignment is necessary for those devices according to Article 10(9), point (h), of the MDR.

MDR Transition with MDx CRO

In conclusion, these recent changes and additions to the medical device regulations are significant milestones that harmonize industry standards and ensure a smooth transition for legacy devices, prioritizing safety and public health. The Q&A document serves as an essential tool for manufacturers, notified bodies, and competent authorities navigating the evolving regulatory landscape within the European Union.

Take advantage of MDx CRO’s expertise to ensure MDR compliance and meet transitional period requirements. Partnering with MDx CRO empowers manufacturers to meet safety standards, unlock opportunities in the European healthcare market, and contribute to healthcare advancements.

Contact us today!

Industry Insights & Regulatory Updates

Navigating the IVDR CDx Certification Pathway

ISO 20916:2024 What You Need to Know for Clinical Performance Studies in 2026

IVDR Lab Readiness: Step-by-Step Transition Checklist

Impact of the Health Services Pack on IVD manufacturers, labs/health institutions and sponsors of combined studies

EUDAMED Mandatory Timelines for MDR and IVDR