IVDR in prac­ti­ce: What Manu­fac­tu­r­ers need to con­sider in Per­for­mance Studies

The Docu­ment MDCG 2025–5 of the Medi­cal Device Coor­di­na­ti­on Group pro­vi­des com­pre­hen­si­ve ques­ti­ons and ans­wers on per­for­mance stu­dies of in vitro dia­gno­stic medi­cal devices (IVDs) in accordance with EU Regu­la­ti­on 2017/746 (IVDR). It cla­ri­fies the defi­ni­ti­ons of per­for­mance stu­dies, ana­ly­ti­cal and cli­ni­cal stu­dies, as well as the requi­re­ments for their con­duct and report­ing to the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties. It explains which stu­dies requi­re an appli­ca­ti­on or noti­fi­ca­ti­on based on cri­te­ria such as inva­si­ve sample-taking, inter­ven­tio­na­li­ty or the use of com­pa­n­ion dia­gno­stics. It also covers timing aspects, sub­stan­ti­al modi­fi­ca­ti­ons of per­for­mance stu­dies and the use of CE-marked IVDs in per­for­mance stu­dies to ensu­re the safe­ty and per­for­mance of the devices. The docu­ment ans­wers the fol­lo­wing ques­ti­ons in particular:

What is a per­for­mance stu­dy accor­ding to the IVDR?

A per­for­mance stu­dy accor­ding to Artic­le 2(42) IVDR is a stu­dy under­ta­ken to estab­lish or con­firm the ana­ly­ti­cal or cli­ni­cal per­for­mance of an in vitro dia­gno­stic device (IVD). Unli­ke cli­ni­cal or labo­ra­to­ry methods, which descri­be work­flows or ope­ra­ting ins­truc­tions, a per­for­mance stu­dy focu­ses on gene­ra­ting per­for­mance data for the device its­elf. Such stu­dies may use fresh samples from human sub­jects, but may also use data from cura­ted data­ba­ses, regis­tries, or pre­vious­ly coll­ec­ted pati­ent data or materials.

What are ana­ly­ti­cal and cli­ni­cal per­for­mance stu­dies, and when are both required?

  • Ana­ly­ti­cal per­for­mance stu­dies assess the abili­ty of an IVD to mea­su­re an ana­ly­te cor­rect­ly (e.g. sen­si­ti­vi­ty, spe­ci­fi­ci­ty, precision).
  • Cli­ni­cal per­for­mance stu­dies demons­tra­te whe­ther results cor­re­la­te with a cli­ni­cal con­di­ti­on (e.g. dia­gno­stic sen­si­ti­vi­ty, pre­dic­ti­ve values).

Ana­ly­ti­cal stu­dies are always requi­red. Cli­ni­cal per­for­mance data may also be obtai­ned from lite­ra­tu­re or rou­ti­ne use – a stu­dy is neces­sa­ry if this data is insufficient.

Which per­for­mance stu­dies are regu­la­ted by the IVDR and which requi­re sub­mis­si­on to the com­pe­tent authority?

All per­for­mance stu­dies within the mea­ning of the IVDR are sub­ject to gene­ral requi­re­ments (e.g. GSPR, data protection).

An appli­ca­ti­on must be sub­mit­ted for:

  • sur­gi­cal­ly invsa­si­ve sample-taking only for the pur­po­se of the per­for­mance studies,
  • inter­ven­tio­nal cli­ni­cal per­for­mance studies,
  • addi­tio­nal risks for the subjects
  • com­pa­n­ion dia­gno­stics invol­ved but not only left-over samples are used.

Noti­fi­ca­ti­on is suf­fi­ci­ent in the fol­lo­wing cases:

  • com­pa­n­ion dia­gno­stics for which only left-over samples are used,
  • PMPF stu­dies with CE-IVDs and inva­si­ve procedures.

Stu­dies wit­hout the­se cha­rac­te­ristics do not need to be sub­mit­ted, but remain sub­ject to Artic­le 57.

What is the mea­ning of “sur­gi­cal­ly inva­si­ve sample-taking done only for the pur­po­se of the per­for­mance stu­dy” and “inter­ven­tio­nal cli­ni­cal per­for­mance study”?

  • Sur­gi­cal­ly inva­si­ve sample-taking means the use of inva­si­ve pro­ce­du­res only for the pur­po­se of the stu­dy – in which case an appli­ca­ti­on is requi­red. Rou­ti­ne pro­ce­du­res used for stu­dy pur­po­ses are not con­side­red to be ‘only for the pur­po­se of the per­for­mance study’.
  • Inter­ven­tio­nal stu­dies influence pati­ent manage­ment. The­re is a risk here of incor­rect decis­i­ons being made due to unre­lia­ble test results.

What are „left-over samples“ and what sub­mis­si­on requi­re­ments app­ly when they are used in per­for­mance studies?

Left-over samples are resi­du­al mate­ri­al from rou­ti­ne dia­gno­stics wit­hout cli­ni­cal need, pos­si­bly from biobanks.

Sub­mis­si­on requirements:

  • Com­pa­n­ion dia­gno­stics: Noti­fi­ca­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 58(2)
  • Non-companion dia­gno­stics with addi­tio­nal risks: Appli­ca­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 58(1)©
  • PMPF with CE-IVDs and bur­den­so­me pro­ce­du­res: noti­fi­ca­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 70(1).

What is meant by ‘bur­den­so­me’ pro­ce­du­res in PMPF stu­dies, and when can such stu­dies be star­ted with CE-marked devices?

  • Bur­den­so­me pro­ce­du­res are all pro­ce­du­res that may cau­se dis­com­fort, risks or rest­ric­tions. The assess­ment must be made from the per­spec­ti­ve of the per­son concerned.
  • Accor­ding to Artic­le 71 (1) IVDR, a PMPF stu­dy invol­ving bur­den­so­me pro­ce­du­res may be initia­ted after noti­fi­ca­ti­on – appr­oval is not gene­ral­ly requi­red unless the­re are objec­tions or nega­ti­ve ethi­cal opinions.

So what do IVD manu­fac­tu­r­ers need to bear in mind with regard to per­for­mance studies?

Manu­fac­tu­r­ers are respon­si­ble for deter­mi­ning the inten­ded pur­po­se of their IVD. They must ensu­re that the pro­duct meets the gene­ral safe­ty and per­for­mance requi­re­ments (GSPR) set out in Annex I of the IVDR – in par­ti­cu­lar for aspects not cover­ed by the stu­dy. For the aspects exami­ned in the stu­dy, appro­pria­te pre­cau­ti­ons to pro­tect pati­ents, users and third par­ties must be taken and documented.

Com­pli­ance with the GSPR must be con­firm­ed. The under­ly­ing evi­dence of GSPR com­pli­ance must be made available to the aut­ho­ri­ties upon request.

The per­for­mance stu­dy plan must descri­be the tech­ni­cal and func­tion­al cha­rac­te­ristics of the IVD, inclu­ding pro­duct spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons, the rela­ti­onship to the inten­ded cli­ni­cal bene­fit, and whe­ther a cha­rac­te­ristic affects safe­ty or performance.

In addi­ti­on, clear, vali­da­ted ins­truc­tions for use, sto­rage, main­ten­an­ce and hand­ling of the pro­duct must be pro­vi­ded. This infor­ma­ti­on, inclu­ding trai­ning requi­re­ments, must be writ­ten in a way that is under­stan­da­ble in the offi­ci­al language(s) of the Mem­ber Sta­te con­cer­ned. Par­ti­cu­lar atten­ti­on must be paid to pro­ducts for self-application or near-patient diagnostics.

If seve­ral IVDs are being inves­ti­ga­ted in a stu­dy, all rele­vant docu­ments, such as the inves­ti­ga­tor’s bro­chu­re and the decla­ra­ti­on of con­for­mi­ty, must cover all devices con­cer­ned in full.

What needs to be done now?

Only tho­se who are fami­li­ar with and meet the requi­re­ments for ana­ly­ti­cal and cli­ni­cal per­for­mance stu­dies can bring IVDs to mar­ket safe­ly, eco­no­mic­al­ly and in com­pli­ance with the law.

We are hap­py to assist you. Get in touch with us.

back

Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.