Skip to content

Navigating the regulatory landscape for in vitro diagnostics in a changing landscape

Following the guidelines outlined in Regulation (EU) 2017/746, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices are subject to classification into one of four classes (A, B, C, D), which is contingent on their intended purpose and inherent risks, as stipulated in Article 47.

In the dynamic world of medical diagnostics, staying ahead of the curve requires a deep understanding of regulatory nuances – particularly in light of the recent implementation of the IVD regulation in May 2022. With innovative technologies like artificial intelligence software and medical devices reshaping the diagnostics landscape, researchers and innovators must chart a path beyond traditional boundaries, crafting research proposals and development roadmaps that encompass this new wave. In a landscape that is constantly transforming, we shed light on three relevant cases to enhance the effectiveness of your diagnostic pursuits.

Classifying medical devices based on their intended purpose is pivotal for regulatory alignment. A device’s intended use significantly shapes its classification, which ensures that similar devices with akin risks are grouped together for consistent oversight. For devices intended to work together, like diagnostic equipment with accessories, each element is classified separately. This method ensures meticulous evaluation of each part’s functionality and interactions. The overarching goal is to ensure that the regulatory framework effectively captures the nuances of devices used together, providing a comprehensive assessment of their combined impact on patient safety and healthcare outcomes.

Software's impact on classification

In an era marked by the integration of software into medical devices, the classification of such devices has evolved to accommodate this technological convergence. Software that directly drives or significantly influences a device’s functioning is intertwined with the device’s classification. This recognizes the essential role that software plays in overall performance and safety. If the software operates independently, devoid of a direct relationship with another device, it is evaluated and classified based on its own attributes. This perspective mirrors the dynamic nature of software-driven devices and underlines the importance of considering not only the physical components but also the digital elements that contribute to a device’s overall function.

In medical diagnostics, class distinctions can be blurred as complex devices often fulfill multiple purposes. If a device spans multiple classes due to its functions, it is categorized in the higher class. This prevents underclassification and captures risks. The aim is safeguarding public health by addressing multifaceted devices accurately. This practice acknowledges that broader applications correlate with heightened complexity, demanding stringent oversight for patient safety.

By addressing a device’s intended purpose, the impact of using novel technologies, and complex functions, regulatory bodies aim to balance innovation and safety, ensuring effective classification to minimize risks and enhance patient outcomes. This creates new opportunities and challenges for both diagnostic companies and regulators.

In this ever-evolving landscape, crafting effective research proposals and product development roadmaps is strategically imperative. Thoroughly understanding the regulatory landscape and its nuances is no longer a choice but a necessity. As researchers, innovators, and companies endeavour to make a lasting impact in the realm of medical diagnostics, embracing these insights and navigating the regulatory terrain with proficiency serves as their compass.

About the author
Picture of Ivan Ramirez Moral

Ivan Ramirez Moral