The impact of the new European IVD-classification rules on the notified body involvement; a study on the IVDs registered in the Netherlands
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Series/Report no.RIVM letter report 2018-0082
MetadataShow full item record
TitleThe impact of the new European IVD-classification rules on the notified body involvement; a study on the IVDs registered in the Netherlands
Translated TitleDe impact van de nieuwe Europese IVD-classificatieregels op de betrokkenheid van notified bodies; Een studie over de in Nederland geregistreerde IVD's
PubliekssamenvattingIn vitro diagnostics (IVDs) are medical devices for carrying out a test using human specimens such as urine or blood. Examples of these products are pregnancy tests, tests for determining the level of glucose or cholesterol in the blood, and tests that determine the blood group. To ensure that these products are safe and effective in use, the manufacturers must go through a procedure before the IVDs may be sold. The current legislation contains two lists on which IVDs are subdivided into a medium-risk and a high-risk category. IVDs that are not on these lists are automatically classified as low risk. An example of an IVD with high risk is an HIV test, whereas a blood collection tube or a pregnancy test has a low risk. A more stringent market authorisation procedure applies for IVDs with a high risk level and additional approval by an external party, a so-called notified body, is required. For low-risk IVDs, manufacturers may carry out the licensing procedure themselves. This system with lists is no longer sufficient. It has therefore been changed in the new European legislation for IVDs, which comes into effect in 2022. The risk of IVDs is then determined according to rules and subdivided into a cascade of four categories. Examples of factors that determine the risk are severity of the disorder tested for and possible consequences of an incorrect test result. Research carried out by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has shown that this means that many more IVDs will end up in a higher risk category (84 instead of 7 percent). This means that the number of IVDs for which the manufacturer requires approval of a notified body in order to obtain market authorization will be much greater.
In-vitro diagnostica (IVDs) zijn medische hulpmiddelen om lichaamsmateriaal zoals urine of bloed te testen. Voorbeelden van deze producten zijn zwangerschapstesten, testen om het gehalte van glucose of cholesterol in het bloed te meten en testen die de bloedgroep bepalen. Om te waarborgen dat deze producten veilig en effectief in het gebruik zijn, moeten fabrikanten een procedure doorlopen voordat de IVD's mogen worden verkocht. De huidige wetgeving bevat twee lijsten waarop IVD's zijn onderverdeeld in een 'midden' en een 'hoog' risico. IVD's die niet op deze lijst staan worden automatisch ingeschaald als 'laag' risico. Een voorbeeld van een IVD met een hoog risico is een hiv-test, terwijl een bloedbuisje of zwangerschapstest een laag risico heeft. Voor IVD's met een hoog risico geldt een zwaardere toelatingsprocedure en is een extra goedkeuring door een externe partij, een zogenaamde notified body, nodig. Voor laag risico IVD's mogen fabrikanten zelf de toelatingsprocedure uitvoeren. Dit systeem met lijsten voldoet niet meer. Daarom is het in de nieuwe Europese wetgeving voor IVD's, die in 2022 in werking treedt, veranderd. Het risico van IVD's wordt dan volgens nieuw opgestelde regels bepaald en trapsgewijs in vier klassen onderverdeeld. Factoren die van invloed zijn op het risico zijn bijvoorbeeld de ernst van de aandoening waarop wordt getest en mogelijke gevolgen van een onjuiste testuitslag. Uit onderzoek van het RIVM blijkt dat hierdoor veel meer IVD's in een hogere risicoklasse zullen vallen (84 in plaats van 7 procent). Dat betekent dat het aantal IVD's waarvoor de fabrikant goedkeuring van een notified body nodig heeft om het product op de markt te mogen brengen, veel groter zal zijn.
SponsorsThe Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Preparation of irritant polymer samples for an in vitro round robin study.Coleman, Kelly P; Grailer, Thomas P; McNamara, Lori R; Rollins, Beau L; Christiano, Nicholas J; Kandárová, Helena; De Jong, Wim H (2018-02-02)A round robin study using reconstructed human epidermis (RhE) tissues was conducted to test medical device polymer extracts for skin irritation potential. Test samples were four irritant and three non-irritant medical device polymers. Five of these polymer samples were developed and two were obtained commercially. The three non-irritant samples were comprised of 100% 80A polyurethane, one-part silicone, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The polyurethane samples were made using a hot-melt process, while the silicone samples were created by mixing and casting. The PVC samples were commercially produced sheets. The four irritant samples were comprised of one-part silicone and 25% heptanoic acid (HA), two-part silicone and 15% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), PVC and 4% Genapol® X-100, and PVC and 5.8% Genapol® X-080. The HA, SDS, and Genapol® X-100 samples were produced using the mixing and casting method, while the Genapol® X-080 sheet samples were obtained commercially. During development, irritant polymer samples were extracted using polar and non-polar solvents that were subsequently analyzed chemically. Samples with sufficient levels of extracted irritants were tested on RhE tissues to confirm their irritation potential. Polymers that passed this screening test were used in the round robin study described elsewhere in this special edition.
Pre-validation of an in vitro skin irritation test for medical devices using the reconstructed human tissue model EpiDerm™.Kandarova, Helena; Willoughby, Jamin A; De Jong, Wim H; Letasiova, Silvia; Milasova, Tatiana; Bachelor, Michael A; Breyfogle, Bridget; Handa, Yuki; De la Fonteyne, Liset; Coleman, Kelly P (2018-02-10)Assessment of dermal irritation is an essential component of the safety evaluation of medical devices. Reconstructed human epidermis (RhE) models have replaced rabbit skin irritation testing for neat chemicals and their mixtures (OECD Test Guideline 439). However, this guideline cannot be directly applied to the area of medical devices (MD) since their non-toxicity assessment is largely based on the testing of MD extracts that may have very low irritation potential. Therefore, the RhE-methods previously validated with neat chemicals needed to be modified to reflect the needs for detection of low levels of potential irritants. A protocol employing RhE EpiDerm was optimized in 2013 using known irritants and spiked polymers (Casas et al., 2013, TIV). In 2014 and 2015 MatTek In Vitro Life Science Laboratories (IVLSL) and RIVM assessed the transferability of the assay. After the successful transfer and standardization of the protocol, 17 laboratories were trained in the use of the protocol in the preparation for the validation. Laboratories produced data with 98% agreement of predictions for the selected references and controls. We conclude that a modified RhE skin irritation test has the potential to address the skin irritation potential of the medical devices. Standardization and focus on the technical issues is essential for accurate prediction.
Evaluation of the medical devices benchmark materials in the controlled human patch testing and in the RhE in vitro skin irritation protocol.Kandárová, Helena; Bendova, Hana; Letasiova, Silvia; Coleman, Kelly P; De Jong, Wim H; Jírova, Dagmar (2018-02-17)Several irritants were used in the in vitro irritation medical device round robin. The objective of this study was to verify their irritation potential using the human patch test (HPT), an in vitro assay, and in vivo data. The irritants were lactic acid (LA), heptanoic acid (HA), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), Genapol® X-80 (GP), and Y-4 polymer. Dilute saline and sesame seed oil (SSO) solutions of each were evaluated using a 4 and 18 h HPT and the EpiDerm™ SIT-MD RhE assay; results were then compared to existing rabbit skin irritation test data. Results from the 4 h HPT were negative in most cases except for GP and SDS, while the 18 h HPT also identified some LA, HA, and GP samples as irritants. EpiDerm™ SIT-MD correctly identified all irritants except GP in SSO due to limited solubility. Data from cutaneous rabbit irritation tests were negative, while all intracutaneous results were strongly or weakly positive except for the most dilute GP solutions. These findings indicate that EpiDerm™ SIT-MD results correlate with those from the rabbit intracutaneous test and confirm that RhE assays are suitable replacements for animals in evaluating the tissue irritation potential of medical devices.