The New EU Regulation on In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices: Implications and Preparatory Actions for Diagnostic Laboratories

Reference, calibration and referral laboratories - a look at current European provisions and beyond

European Union (EU) regulations on in vitro diagnostics (IVD) and on serious cross-border threats to health provide for the establishment of European Reference Laboratories (EURLs) and their harmonization and cooperation with National Reference Laboratories (NRLs). While the EURLs under the IVD Regulation will be operational by 1 October 2024, the EURLs under the Regulation on serious cross-border threats to health will be operational by January 2025. Although NRLs may have been operating for a long time on the basis of national legislation, they should now cooperate with each other and with EURLs in a network of centers of excellence for the authorization and post-market surveillance of IVDs and for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases. The term "reference laboratory" has long been used colloquially to refer to many kinds of laboratories, regardless of their tasks, competencies, responsibilities and designation. A literature search and analysis confirmed this by showing that a considerable proportion of scientific publications in 2024 use the term "reference laboratory" inappropriately. In order to clarify the roles and functioning of EURLs and NRLs, we have evaluated the relevant current EU provisions and compared the findings with those of reference laboratories designated by other organizations, calibration (reference) laboratories and referral laboratories, which are simply referred to as "reference laboratories". With the forthcoming implementation of the EU regulations, at least the goals of providing safe and high-quality IVDs and adequate public health surveillance for communicable diseases appear to be achievable.

Status of the implementation of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice in Spain: from regional to national initiatives

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) has the potential to improve patient care, allowing to transform medical interventions by providing personalized therapeutic strategies. Scientific evidence supports the use of PGx in clinical practice and international organizations are developing clinical guidelines to facilitate the utilization of PGx testing. However, clinical implementation of PGx is limited and unequal worldwide.

CONTENT

This review summarizes regional and national Spanish initiatives to implement PGx in the clinical practice.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

Diverse strategies to implement PGx in healthcare are applied across countries or even in the different regions of a specific country. Such was the case of Spain, a European country with 17 Autonomous Regions and two Autonomous Cities, each one with capacity to manage their own healthcare systems. Nevertheless, during the past years, many initiatives and strategies have been launched in Spain to develop different aspects of PGx. Importantly, the National Healthcare System has approved a PGx testing catalogue. This review highlights the crucial work and efforts of scientific societies (like the Spanish Society of Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics), of experts in PGx, of healthcare providers and of governmental parties in the implementation of PGx to personalize patient therapy, focused in Spain.

Innovative diagnostic technologies: navigating regulatory frameworks through advances, challenges, and future prospects

Diagnostic tools are key to guiding patient management and informing public health policies to control infectious diseases. However, many diseases still do not have effective diagnostics and much of the global population faces restricted access to reliable, affordable testing. This limitation underscores the urgent need for innovation to enhance diagnostic availability and effectiveness. Developing diagnostics presents distinct challenges, especially for innovators and regulators. Unlike medicines, regulatory pathways for diagnostics are often less defined and more complex due to their diverse risk profiles and wide range of products. These challenges are amplified in low-income and middle-income countries, which often do not have regulatory frameworks for this specific purpose. In the UK, initiatives aim to support innovation by providing clearer regulatory pathways and ensuring that diagnostics are safe and effective. Regulators are also collaborating internationally to expedite diagnostics for high-need regions. Harmonised standards, regulatory frameworks, and approval processes are essential to ensure consistent quality and safety across regions and facilitate faster development and global access. This Series paper explores the regulatory challenges in infectious disease and antimicrobial resistance diagnostics, focusing on the UK's response and the broader global efforts to address these issues.

Recent Trends in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Peptide Antibiotics

Antimicrobial peptides take a specific position in the field of antibiotics (ATBs), however, from a large number of available molecules only a few of them were approved and are used in clinics. These therapeutic modalities play a crucial role in the management of diseases caused by multidrug-resistant bacterial pathogens and represent the last-line therapy for bacterial infections. Therefore, there is a demand for a rationale use of such ATBs based on optimization of the dosing strategy to minimize the risk of resistance and ensure the sustainable efficacy of the drug in real clinical practice. Therapeutic drug monitoring, as a measurement of drug concentration in the body fluids or tissues, results in the optimization of the patient´s medication and therapy outcome. This strategy is beneficial and could result in tailored therapy for different types of infection and the prolongation of the use and efficacy of ATBs in hospitals. This review paper provides an actual overview of approved antimicrobial peptides used in clinical practice and covers current trends in their analysis by convenient and advanced methodologies used for their identification and/or quantitation in biological matrices for therapeutic drug monitoring purposes. Special emphasis is given to the methods with perspective clinical outcomes.

Cell block practices in European cytopathology laboratories

BACKGROUND

There are numerous methods and procedures described for the preparation of cell blocks (CBs) from cytological samples. The objective of this study was to determine current practices and issues with CBs in European laboratories.

METHODS

A link to an online survey, with 11 questions about CB practices, was distributed to cytology laboratories via participants of United Kingdom National External Quality Assurance Service for Cellular Pathology Techniques and national representatives in the European Federation of Cytology Societies.

RESULTS

A total of 402 laboratories responded completely (337/402, 84%) or partially (65/402, 16%) to the survey by February 4, 2022. The most common CB practice is embedding cell pellets using plasma and thrombin (23.3%), agar (17.1%), Shandon/Epredia Cytoblock (11.4%), HistoGel (7.9%), and Cellient (3.5%). Other methods such as CytoFoam, albumin, gelatin, Cytomatrix, and collodion bags are rarely used (1.0%, 0.7%, 0.7%, 0.3%, and 0.2%, respectively). CBs are also prepared from naturally occurring clots or tissue fragments (29.5%) and cells scraped from unstained or prestained smears (4.4%). The most frequent issues with the CBs in a daily cytology practice are low cellularity (248/402, 62%) and dispersed cells (89/402, 22%), regardless of the CBs preparation method or how the samples for embedding were selected.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great variability in CB practices in European laboratories with low cellular CBs as the main issue. Additional studies are mandatory to evaluate and improve performance and cellular yield of CBs.

Targeted DNA Methylation Analysis Facilitates Leukocyte Counts in Dried Blood Samples

BACKGROUND

Cell-type specific DNA methylation (DNAm) can be employed to determine the numbers of leukocyte subsets in blood. In contrast to conventional methods for leukocyte counts, which are based on cellular morphology or surface marker protein expression, the cellular deconvolution based on DNAm levels is applicable for frozen or dried blood. Here, we further enhanced targeted DNAm assays for leukocyte counts in clinical application.

METHODS

DNAm profiles of 40 different studies were compiled to identify CG dinucleotides (CpGs) with cell-type specific DNAm using a computational framework, CimpleG. DNAm levels at these CpGs were then measured with digital droplet PCR in venous blood from 160 healthy donors and 150 patients with various hematological disorders. Deconvolution was further validated with venous blood (n = 75) and capillary blood (n = 31) that was dried on Whatman paper or on Mitra microsampling devices.

RESULTS

In venous blood, automated cell counting or flow cytometry correlated well with epigenetic estimates of relative leukocyte counts for granulocytes (r = 0.95), lymphocytes (r = 0.97), monocytes (r = 0.82), CD4 T cells (r = 0.84), CD8 T cells (r = 0.94), B cells (r = 0.96), and NK cells (r = 0.72). Similar correlations and precisions were achieved for dried blood samples. Spike-in with a reference plasmid enabled accurate epigenetic estimation of absolute leukocyte counts from dried blood samples, correlating with conventional venous (r = 0.86) and capillary (r = 0.80) blood measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The advanced selection of cell-type specific CpGs and utilization of digital droplet PCR analysis provided accurate epigenetic blood counts. Analysis of dried blood facilitates self-sampling with a finger prick, thereby enabling easier accessibility to testing.

Structure and content of the EU-IVDR : Current status and implications for pathology

BACKGROUND

Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR) was passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on 5 April 2017 and came into force on 26 May 2017. A new amending regulation, which introduces a phased implementation of the IVDR with new transitional provisions for certain in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) and a later date of application of some requirements for in-house devices for healthcare facilities, was adopted on 15 December 2021. The combined use of CE-certified IVDs (CE-IVDs), in-house IVDs (IH-IVDs), and research use only (RUO) devices are a cornerstone of diagnostics in pathology departments and crucial for optimal patient care. The IVDR not only regulates the manufacture and placement on the market of industrially manufactured IVDs, but also imposes conditions on the manufacture and use of IH-IVDs for internal use by healthcare facilities.

OBJECTIVES

Our work provides an overview of the background and structure of the IVDR and identifies core areas that need to be interpreted and fleshed out in the context of the legal framework as well as expert knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The gaps and ambiguities in the IVDR crucially require the expertise of professional societies, alliances, and individual stakeholders to successfully facilitate the implementation and use of the IVDR in pathology departments and to avoid aberrant developments.

Modified study designs to expand treatment options in personalised oncology: a multistakeholder view

Personalised oncology, whereby patients are given therapies based on their molecular tumour profile, is rapidly becoming an essential part of optimal clinical care, at least partly facilitated by recent advances in next-generation sequencing-based technology using liquid- and tissue-based biopsies. Consequently, clinical trials have shifted in approach, from traditional studies evaluating cytotoxic chemotherapy in largely histology-based populations to modified, biomarker-driven studies (e.g. basket, umbrella, platform) of molecularly guided therapies and cancer immunotherapies in selected patient subsets. Such modified study designs may assess, within the same trial structure, multiple cancer types and treatments, and should incorporate a multistakeholder perspective. This is key to generating complementary, fit-for-purpose and timely evidence for molecularly guided therapies that can be used as proof-of-concept to inform further study designs, lead to approval by regulatory authorities and be used as confirmation of clinical benefit for health technology assessment bodies. In general, the future of cancer clinical trials requires a framework for the application of innovative technologies and dynamic design methodologies, in order to efficiently transform scientific discoveries into clinical utility. Next-generation, modified studies that involve the joint efforts of all key stakeholders will offer individualised strategies that ultimately contribute to globalised knowledge and collective learning. In this review, we outline the background and purpose of such modified study designs and detail key aspects from a multistakeholder perspective. We also provide methodological considerations for designing the studies and highlight how insights from already-ongoing studies may address current challenges and opportunities in the era of personalised oncology.

A multicentre external quality assessment: A first step to standardise PCR protocols for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis and coccidioidomycosis

BACKGROUND

In-house real-time PCR (qPCR) is increasingly used to diagnose the so-called endemic mycoses as commercial assays are not widely available.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance of different molecular diagnostic assays for detecting Histoplasma capsulatum and Coccidioides spp. in five European reference laboratories.

METHODS

Two blinded external quality assessment (EQA) panels were sent to each laboratory that performed the analysis with their in-house assays. Both panels included a range of concentrations of H. capsulatum (n = 7) and Coccidioides spp. (n = 6), negative control and DNA from other fungi. Four laboratories used specific qPCRs, and one laboratory a broad-range fungal conventional PCR (cPCR) and a specific cPCR for H. capsulatum with subsequent sequencing.

RESULTS

qPCR assays were the most sensitive for the detection of H. capsulatum DNA. The lowest amount of H. capsulatum DNA detected was 1-4 fg, 0.1 pg and 10 pg for qPCRs, specific cPCR and broad-range cPCR, respectively. False positive results occurred with high concentrations of Blastomyces dermatitidis DNA in two laboratories and with Emergomyces spp. in one laboratory. For the Coccidioides panel, the lowest amount of DNA detected was 1-16 fg by qPCRs and 10 pg with the broad-range cPCR. One laboratory reported a false positive result by qPCR with high load of Uncinocarpus DNA.

CONCLUSION

All five laboratories were able to correctly detect H. capsulatum and Coccidioides spp. DNA and qPCRs had a better performance than specific cPCR and broad-range cPCR. EQAs may help standardise in-house molecular tests for the so-called endemic mycoses improving patient management.

The role of clinical glyco(proteo)mics in precision medicine

Glycoproteomics reveals site-specific O- and N-glycosylation that may influence protein properties including binding, activity and half-life. The increasingly mature toolbox with glycomic- and glycoproteomic strategies is applied for the development of biopharmaceuticals and discovery and clinical evaluation of glycobiomarkers in various disease fields. Notwithstanding the contributions of glycoscience in identifying new drug targets, the current report is focused on the biomarker modality that is of interest for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. To this end it is noted that the identification of biomarkers has received more attention than corresponding quantification. Most analytical methods are very efficient in detecting large numbers of analytes but developments to accurately quantify these have so far been limited. In this perspective a parallel is made with earlier proposed tiers for protein quantification using mass spectrometry. Moreover, the foreseen reporting of multimarker readouts is discussed to describe an individual's health or disease state and their role in clinical decision-making. The potential of longitudinal sampling and monitoring of glycomic features for diagnosis and treatment monitoring is emphasized. Finally, different strategies that address quantification of a multimarker panel will be discussed.

Quality Assurance for Hepatitis C Virus Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Sub-Saharan Africa

As part of a multinational study to evaluate the Bioline Hepatitis C virus (HCV) point-of-care (POC) testing in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), this narrative review summarises regulatory standards and quality indicators for validating and approving HCV clinical diagnostics. In addition, this review also provides a summary of their diagnostic evaluations using the REASSURED criteria as the benchmark and its implications on the WHO HCV elimination goals 2030.

The gaps between the new EU legislation on in vitro diagnostics and the on-the-ground reality

The background to this debate is now well-known: an EU policy decision to tighten controls on the devices and diagnostics sector led to the adoption of a regulation in 2017 with a schedule for implementation over coming years - a timetable extended still further by last-minute legislation in early 2022, to provide the sector and regulators with more time to adapt to the changes. Discussions among experts organised in April by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine (EAPM) exposed continuing challenges that cannot be fully resolved by the recent deferral of implementation deadlines. One salient problem is that there is little awareness of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) across Europe, and only limited awareness of the different structures of national systems involved in implementing IVDR, with consequent risks for patient and consumer access to in vitro diagnostics (IVDs). The tentative conclusion from these consultations is that despite a will across the sector to seek workable solutions, the obstacles remain formidable, and the potential solutions so far proposed remain more a matter of aspirations than of clear pathways.

High-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue to treat stage III homologous deficient breast cancer: factors influencing clinical implementation

BACKGROUND

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is a promising treatment for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, homologous recombination deficient (HRD) breast cancer. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are currently under investigation in an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. To increase the chance of successful introduction of HDCT into daily clinical practice, we aimed to identify relevant factors for smooth implementation using an early comprehensive assessment framework.

METHODS

This is a qualitative, multi-stakeholder, exploratory research using semi-structured interviews guided by the Constructive Technology Assessment model, which evaluates the quality of a novel health technology by clinical, economic, patient-related, and organizational factors. Stakeholders were recruited by purposeful stratified sampling and interviewed until sufficient content saturation was reached. Two researchers independently created themes, categories, and subcategories by following inductive coding steps, these were verified by a third researcher.

RESULTS

We interviewed 28 stakeholders between June 2019 and April 2021. In total, five overarching themes and seventeen categories were identified. Important findings for optimal implementation included the structural identification and referral of all eligible patients, early integration of supportive care, multidisciplinary collaboration between- and within hospitals, (de)centralization of treatment aspects, the provision of information for patients and healthcare professionals, and compliance to new regulation for the BRCA1-like test.

CONCLUSIONS

In anticipation of a positive reimbursement decision, we recommend to take the highlighted implementation factors into consideration. This might expedite and guide high-quality equitable access to HDCT for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, HRD breast cancer in the Netherlands.

[Structure and content of the EU-IVDR : Current status and implications for pathology]

BACKGROUND

Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR) was passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on 5 April 2017 and came into force on 26 May 2017. A new amending regulation, which introduces a phased implementation of the IVDR with new transitional provisions for certain in vitro diagnostic medical devices and a later date of application of some requirements for in-house devices for healthcare facilities, was adopted on 15 December 2021. The combined use of CE-IVDs, in-house IVDs, and RUO products are a cornerstone of diagnostics in pathology departments and crucial for optimal patient care. The IVDR not only regulates the manufacture and placement on the market of industrially manufactured IVDs, but also imposes conditions on the manufacture and use of IH-IVDs for internal use by healthcare facilities.

OBJECTIVES

Our work provides an overview of the background and structure of the IVDR and identifies core areas that need to be interpreted and fleshed out in the context of the legal framework as well as expert knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The gaps and ambiguities in the IVDR crucially require the expertise of professional societies, alliances, and individual stakeholders to successfully facilitate the implementation and use of the IVDR in pathology departments and to avoid aberrant developments.

Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Circulating cell free DNA (cfDNA) testing of plasma for EGFR somatic variants in lung cancer patients is being widely implemented and with any new service, external quality assessment (EQA) is required to ensure patient safety. An international consortium, International Quality Network for Pathology (IQNPath), has delivered a second round of assessment to measure the accuracy of cfDNA testing for lung cancer and the interpretation of the results.

METHODS

A collaboration of five EQA provider organisations, all members of IQNPath, have delivered the assessment during 2018-19 to a total of 264 laboratories from 45 countries. Bespoke plasma reference material containing a range of EGFR mutations at varying allelic frequencies were supplied to laboratories for testing and reporting according to routine procedures. The genotyping accuracy and clinical reporting was reviewed against standardised criteria and feedback was provided to participants.

RESULTS

The overall genotyping error rate in the EQA was found to be 11.1%. Low allelic frequency samples were the most challenging and were not detected by some testing methods, resulting in critical genotyping errors. This was reflected in higher false negative rates for samples with variant allele frequencies (VAF) rates less than 1.5% compared to higher frequencies. A sample with two different EGFR mutations gave inconsistent detection of both mutations. However, for one sample, where two variants were present at a VAF of less than 1% then both mutations were correctly detected in 145/263 laboratories. Reports often did not address the risk that tumour DNA may have not been tested and limitations of the methodologies provided by participants were insufficient. This was reflected in the average interpretation score for the EQA being 1.49 out of a maximum of 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability in the standard of genotyping and reporting highlighted the need for EQA and educational guidance in this field to ensure the delivery of high-quality clinical services where testing of cfDNA is the only option for clinical management.

Landscape analysis of NTD diagnostics and considerations on the development of a strategy for regulatory pathways

Access to quality-assured, accurate diagnostics is critical to ensure that the 2021-2030 neglected tropical disease (NTD) road map targets can be achieved. Currently, however, there is limited regulatory oversight and few quality assurance mechanisms for NTD diagnostic tools. In attempting to address such challenges and the changing environment in regulatory requirements for diagnostics, a landscape analysis was conducted, to better understand the availability of NTD diagnostics and inform future regulatory frameworks. The list of commercially available diagnostics was compiled from various sources, including WHO guidance, national guidelines for case detection and management, diagnostic target product profiles and the published literature. The inventory was analyzed according to diagnostic type, intended use, regulatory status, and risk classification. To estimate the global need and size of the market for each type of diagnostic, annual procurement data were collected from WHO, procurement agencies, NGOs and international organizations, where available and global disease prevalence. Expert interviews were also conducted to ensure a better understanding of how diagnostics are procured and used. Of 125 diagnostic tools included in this analysis, rapid diagnostic tools accounted for 33% of diagnostics used for NTDs and very few diagnostics had been subjected to regulatory assessment. The number of tests needed for each disease was less than 1 million units per annum, except in the case of two diseases, suggesting limited commercial value. Despite the nature of the market, and presumed insufficient return on commercial investment, acceptable levels of assurance on performance, quality and safety of diagnostics are still required. Priority actions include setting up an agile, interim, stepwise risk assessment mechanism, in particular for diagnostics of lower risk, in order to support national NTD programmes and their partners with the selection and procurement of the diagnostics needed to control, eliminate and eradicate NTDs.

Impact of the new European Union In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation on the practice of hospital diagnostic laboratories

OBJECTIVES

The In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR) coming into force from May 2022, creates the first European regulatory recognition for biomarker tests linked to medicinal products, so-called companion diagnostics (CDx). Since the introduction of the IVDR is associated with uncertainties about its impact on hospital practice, it is urgent and valuable to investigate how and why CDx are currently used in hospital practice, which factors influence the choice for applying in-house or commercial CDx, and what the expectations are about how the IVDR may affect current practice.

METHODS

We investigated these questions using an interview-based approach and focused on 15 hospital laboratories in the Netherlands, including 7 academic and 8 general hospitals. All types of CDx were considered relevant for this research, including both genetic and protein-based biomarkers.

RESULTS

Factors found included: costs and convenience, complexity of application, and compatibility with existing workflows. Next to in-house and commercial CDx, hospital laboratories addressed compatibility by tweaking existing CDx.

CONCLUSION

Although increased quality of CDx is welcomed, worries toward increased costs and administrative work, and decreased quality were expressed. Further, the IVDR might also hinder using optimized in-house and tweaked CDx. Additionally, increased administrative burden could decrease innovativeness toward CDx.

The Performance of Nine Commercial Serological Screening Assays for the Diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis: a Multicenter Modified Two-Gate Design Study

In this retrospective study, the performance of nine serological screening assays for Lyme borreliosis (LB) diagnostics was evaluated using a study population of LB cases and controls. Sera derived from 74 well-defined LB cases and 122 controls were included. The LB cases were diagnosed with erythema migrans (EM; n = 11), Lyme neuroborreliosis (LNB; n = 35), Lyme arthritis (LA; n = 20), or acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA; n = 8). Controls comprised 74 age- and gender-matched healthy individuals and 48 patients with other diseases with anticipated high rates of cross-reactivity. The assays under evaluation were selected based on a literature review and expected continued availability with CE marking under the new in vitro diagnostic regulation (European Union) 2017/746. The overall sensitivity (IgG and IgM results combined) among LB cases ranged between 54.5% (6 of 11) and 90.9% (10 of 11) for EM patients and between 97.1% (34 of 35) and 100% for patients with LNB, LA, and ACA. The positivity rate ranged between 8.1% (6 of 74) and 29.7% (22 of 74) among the healthy controls and between 22.9% (11 of 48) and 64.6% (31 of 48) among the cross-reactivity controls. The IgM results were more heterogeneous than the IgG and IgM/IgG results and did not contribute to the overall sensitivity but substantially increased the positivity rates among the controls. In conclusion, all evaluated Borrelia serological screening assays performed comparably with respect to early- and late-disseminated LB. The addition of an IgM assay to the screening of Borrelia-specific IgG antibodies had no added value for the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. IMPORTANCE Serology plays an important role in the diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis. Guidelines prescribe a two-tier testing algorithm in which a highly sensitive screening assay is used for screening and reactive sera are retested with an immunoblot to reduce false positivity rates. Recently, two commonly used screening assays were discontinued, including the very well-performing C6 Lyme enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Immunetics). This study provides an evaluation of the performance of nine different Borrelia serology screening assays, eight with expected future availably and the C6 Lyme ELISA, using a well-defined study panel of Lyme borreliosis patients, healthy population controls, and cross-reactivity controls. Evaluation data on multiple assays aid diagnostic laboratories in their choice for a reliable Borrelia serology screening assay to improve their diagnostic algorithm for Lyme borreliosis.

Identifying the Steps Required to Effectively Implement Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology at a National Level in Europe

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may enable more focused and highly personalized cancer treatment, with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines now recommending NGS for daily clinical practice for several tumor types. However, NGS implementation, and therefore patient access, varies across Europe; a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to establish the conditions required to improve this discrepancy. In that regard, we set up European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM)-led expert panels during the first half of 2021, including key stakeholders from across 10 European countries covering medical, economic, patient, industry, and governmental expertise. We describe the outcomes of these panels in order to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS implementation into routine clinical care to enable patient access, identify specific challenges in achieving them, and make short- and long-term recommendations. The main challenges identified relate to the demand for NGS tests (governance, clinical standardization, and awareness and education) and supply of tests (equitable reimbursement, infrastructure for conducting and validating tests, and testing access driven by evidence generation). Recommendations made to resolve each of these challenges should aid multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives, to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.

Biomarker and Companion Diagnostics-A Review of Medicinal Products Approved by the European Medicines Agency

Background: An increasing number of medicines authorised in Europe recommend or require biomarker-based patient selection. For some of these the use of a companion diagnostic (CDx), a subset of in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), to identify patient populations eligible for a specific medicinal product may be required. The information and recommendations of use of a medicinal product for which a CDx is required is particularly important to healthcare professionals for correct patient identification.

Methods: We reviewed the existing information in SmPCs and European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) of EU medicinal products approved via the centralised procedure at EMA where reference was made to biomarker testing, including by CDx, for patient selection.

Results: The results show that varying levels of detail are provided for the biomarker and the diagnostic test, including variability in where the information was presented. The overall results demonstrate transparent but sometimes heterogeneous reporting of CDx in the SmPC and EPAR.

Conclusions: With the introduction of the new Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, medicines regulatory authorities' will be required to be consulted during the review of CDx conformity assessment and so, there is opportunity for more consistent and transparent information on CDx to be provided in the SmPC and EPAR.

Implementation of the new EU IVD regulation - urgent initiatives are needed to avert impending crisis

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079&qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister".