Write to us. Reduces risk of regulatory rejection due to poorly designed studies.
Under Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR), manufacturers must establish sufficient analytical and clinical performance evidence in the intended-use population. A study must be designed to verify diagnostic accuracy of the test through direct comparison to validated reference methods and to demonstrate analytical robustness across relevant specimen matrices and operational variables.
IVD Performance Evaluation
IVD Performance evaluation is a mandatory requirement for all IVD devices. The regulation is clear that manufacturers must demonstrate three pillars of performance:
- Scientific Validity – association between the analyte and the clinical condition.
- Analytical Performance – ability of the IVD to correctly detect/measure the analyte.
- Clinical Performance – ability of the IVD to yield results correlated with a particular clinical condition or physiological state.
The exact tests depend on the type of IVD (e.g., molecular, immunoassay, self-test, companion diagnostic), but IVDR Annex I (GSPR 9–13) outlines minimum mandatory parameters:
Analytical Performance Tests:
- Accuracy (trueness & precision)
- Analytical sensitivity (limit of detection)
- Analytical specificity (cross-reactivity, interference)
- Trueness of measurement
- Precision (repeatability, reproducibility, intermediate precision)
- Limits of detection, quantitation, measuring range
- Linearity
- Cut-off values (if applicable, e.g., qualitative tests)
- Carry-over
- Stability (specimen, reagent, calibrator, control materials)
Clinical Performance Tests:
- Diagnostic sensitivity (true positive rate)
- Diagnostic specificity (true negative rate)
- Positive predictive value (PPV) & Negative predictive value (NPV)
- Likelihood ratios
- Expected values in normal/affected populations
When a CRO is Mandatory / Highly Recommended
-
Prospective clinical performance studies with patient samples, CRO involvement is almost unavoidable because you need ethics committee submission, informed consent, study site management, and monitoring and CROs ensure compliance with ISO 20916 and GCP.
-
Multicenter or international trials CROs manage coordination, logistics, and standardized data collection.
-
High-risk IVDs (Class C & D) Notified Bodies expect independent, unbiased data. Manufacturer-led studies without third-party oversight often face credibility issues.
-
Lack of in-house clinical research infrastructure If the manufacturer cannot demonstrate expertise in study management, monitoring, and data handling, outsourcing to a CRO becomes necessary.
Reghelps SRC CRO Service Scope covering IVD devices
A CRO (Contract Research Organization) can be a major asset for completing IVD performance evaluations under both EU IVDR and US FDA regulations. Here’s a detailed breakdown:
IVD Performance Evaluation Related FAQ’s
Key standards include:
-
ISO 62366-1 – Usability engineering for medical devices.
-
ISO 14971 – Risk management for medical devices.
-
IEC 60601-1-6 – Usability requirements for medical electrical equipment.
-
ISO 20916 – Performance studies for IVDs.
As part of our commitment to regulatory compliance and risk management, we recommend that all non EU manufacturers have valid Product Liability Insurance when appointing us as their European Authorized Representative (EC REP). While it is not a legal requirement under MDR/IVDR for the EC REP to request proof of insurance, many Competent Authorities and Notified Bodies may inquire about the manufacturer’s liability coverage during inspections or audits. Having proper insurance also demonstrates due diligence and protects your business in the event of product-related claims in the European market. We do not provide insurance ourselves, but we can guide you on what to include based on your device risk class and market exposure.
- Improved Document Control
- Effective Audit Management
- Better Employee Training Programs
- Better Risk Management
- Efficient Tracking and Reporting
- Improved Supplier Quality
- Robust CAPA Processes
The timeline varies based on device class and documentation readiness. Class I devices may take a few weeks, while Class IIa, IIb, and III devices requiring Notified Body review may take 6–12 months or more.
Yes, GMP compliance is mandatory for medical device manufacturers who market products in the United States. The FDA enforces GMP through the Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820), which outlines the minimum requirements for design, production, labeling, packaging, and storage of medical devices to ensure safety and effectiveness.
