3.8 Review

Companion Diagnostics: State of the Art and New Regulations

期刊

BIOMARKER INSIGHTS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/11772719211047763

关键词

Companion diagnostics; in vitro diagnostics; IVDR; In-vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Legislation; precision medicine; biomarkers; laboratory developed tests; diagnostic test approval; diagnostic techniques and procedures; diagnostic equipment; molecular diagnostic techniques

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Companion diagnostics show potential for improving drug development and precision medicine, but face challenges in clinical development and regulation. The European Union is implementing new regulations for in vitro diagnostic medical devices, which will have an impact on all stakeholders in the IVD industry.
Companion diagnostics (CDx) hail promise of improving the drug development process and precision medicine. However, there are various challenges involved in the clinical development and regulation of CDx, which are considered high-risk in vitro diagnostic medical devices given the role they play in therapeutic decision-making and the complications they may introduce with respect to their sensitivity and specificity. The European Union (E.U.) is currently in the process of bringing into effect in vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR). The new Regulation is introducing a wide range of stringent requirements for scientific validity, analytical and clinical performance, as well as on post-market surveillance activities throughout the lifetime of in vitro diagnostics (IVD). Compliance with General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPRs) adopts a risk-based approach, which is also the case for the new classification system. This changing regulatory framework has an impact on all stakeholders involved in the IVD Industry, including Authorized Representatives, Distributors, Importers, Notified Bodies, and Reference Laboratories and is expected to have a significant effect on the development of new CDx.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据