Literature DB >> 32692695

The new IVD Regulation 2017/746: a case study at a large university hospital laboratory in Belgium demonstrates the need for clarification on the degrees of freedom laboratories have to use lab-developed tests to improve patient care.

Pieter Vermeersch1,2, Tobias Van Aelst3, Elisabeth M C Dequeker3,4.   

Abstract

Objectives: The new European In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR) restricts the use of lab-developed tests (LDT) after 26th May 2022. There are no data on the impact of the IVDR on laboratories in the European Union.
Methods: Laboratory tests performed in UZ Leuven were divided in four groups: core laboratory, immunology, special chemistry, and molecular microbiology testing. Each test was classified as Conformité Européenne (CE)-IVD, modified/off-label CE-IVD, commercial Research Use Only (RUO) or LDT. Each matrix was considered a separate test.
Results: We found that 97.6% of the more than 11.5 million results/year were generated with a CE-IVD method. Of the 922 different laboratory tests, however, only 41.8% were CE-IVD, 10.8% modified/off-label CE-IVD, 0.3% RUO, and 47.1% LDT. Off-label CE-IVD was mainly used to test alternative matrices not covered by the claim of the manufacturer (e.g., pleural or peritoneal fluid). LDTs were mainly used for special chemistry, flow cytometry, and molecular testing. Excluding flow cytometry, the main reasons for the use of 377 LDTs were lack of a CE-IVD method (71.9%), analytical requirements (14.3%), and the fact the LDT was in use before CE-IVD available (11.9%). Conclusions: While the large majority of results (97.6%) were generated with a CE-IVD method, only 41.8% of laboratory tests were CE-IVD. There is currently no alternative on the market for 71.5% of the 537 LDTs performed in our laboratory which do not fall within the scope of the current IVD directive (IVDD). Compliance with the IVDR will require a major investment of time and effort.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IVDR; diagnostic test approval; in vitro diagnostic regulation; medical device legislation; reagent kits, diagnostic

Year:  2020        PMID: 32692695     DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2020-0804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med        ISSN: 1434-6621            Impact factor:   3.694


  4 in total

1.  Critical Implications of IVDR for Innovation in Diagnostics: Input From the BioMed Alliance Diagnostics Task Force.

Authors:  Isabel Dombrink; Bart R Lubbers; Loredana Simulescu; Robin Doeswijk; Olga Tkachenko; Elisabeth Dequeker; Alan G Fraser; Jacques J M van Dongen; Christa Cobbaert; Monika Brüggemann; Elizabeth Macintyre
Journal:  Hemasphere       Date:  2022-05-20

2.  Comparison of the Quantitative DiaSorin Liaison Antigen Test to Reverse Transcription-PCR for the Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Outpatients.

Authors:  Stefanie Lefever; Christophe Indevuyst; Lize Cuypers; Klaas Dewaele; Nicolas Yin; Frédéric Cotton; Elizaveta Padalko; Matthijs Oyaert; Julie Descy; Etienne Cavalier; Marc Van Ranst; Emmanuel André; Katrien Lagrou; Pieter Vermeersch
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  How the European in vitro diagnostic regulation could negatively impact the European response to the next pandemic: an urgent call for action before May 2022.

Authors:  Pieter Vermeersch; Emmanuel André
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2021-05-09       Impact factor: 8.067

4.  Delayed diagnosis and treatment of extreme hypertriglyceridemia due to rejection of a lipemic sample.

Authors:  Jan Van Elslande; Samira Hijjit; Katrien De Vusser; Michel Langlois; Björn Meijers; Ann Mertens; Bart Van der Schueren; Glynis Frans; Pieter Vermeersch
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 2.313

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.