MedTech Terms
    The authoritative reference
    All terms

    IVDR Risk Classes A–D

    EU IVDR's risk-based classification: Class A (lowest) to Class D (highest).

    Reviewed by Christian Espinosa, Founder, Blue Goat CyberLast reviewed May 5, 2026

    Definition

    Under EU IVDR (2017/746), IVDs are classified A, B, C, or D based on intended purpose and risk to individuals and public health. Class B and above generally require Notified Body involvement.
    What the regulation says
    The EU In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR, 2017/746) outlines a risk-based classification system for in vitro diagnostic medical devices, categorizing them into four classes: A, B, C, and D. This classification is determined by the device's intended purpose and the risks it poses to individual and public health, as detailed in IVDR Annex VIII. Regulators expect manufacturers to correctly classify their devices as this dictates the conformity assessment route and the level of Notified Body involvement required.

    What this means in practice

    IVDR shifted ~80% of IVDs into Notified Body oversight (vs. ~20% under IVDD), creating sustained capacity strain. Common Specifications apply for Class D devices and certain analytes.

    Examples

    • A manufacturer of a new immunoassay for detecting a highly transmissible and dangerous virus would classify it as Class D, necessitating stringent conformity assessment, including Notified Body involvement and potentially expert panel review.
    • A company developing a self-test for monitoring blood glucose levels for diabetic patients would likely classify it as Class B due to the moderate individual risk, requiring Notified Body assessment for conformity.
    • A producer of a general-purpose laboratory instrument, such as a centrifuge, used in IVD procedures but not an IVD itself, would likely have its associated consumables classified as Class A.
    Common pitfalls
    • •Misclassifying an IVD can lead to significant regulatory hurdles, including delays in market access or non-compliance penalties.
    • •Underestimating the evidence required for higher risk classes, particularly for Class C and D devices, is a common pitfall.
    • •Failing to consider all aspects of the intended purpose when determining the risk class can result in an incorrect classification.
    • •Neglecting to update the risk classification if the intended purpose or technology of the IVD changes can lead to non-conformity.
    • •Assuming that a device's classification under the IVDD automatically translates to the same class under the IVDR is incorrect due to the stricter IVDR rules.

    Frequently asked questions

    The IVDR introduced a significantly stricter classification system compared to the IVDD, reclassifying approximately 80% of IVDs into higher risk categories that require Notified Body oversight, whereas under the IVDD only about 20% did.

    Cross-references

    Used by

    Things that build on this term.

    Part of

    A larger framework or document this term belongs to.

    See also

    Closely related context worth reading.

    Grouped by theme

    Primary references

    3 sources
    Link health: 3 verified· last checked 2026-06-20
    EUR-Lex·1FDA·1European Commission·1
    1. 1
      EU IVDR (2017/746)
      Verified
      EUR-Lexeur-lex.europa.eu
    2. 2
      FDA - Medical Devices
      Verified
      FDAfda.gov
    3. 3
      European Commission - Medical Devices
      Verified
      European Commissionhealth.ec.europa.eu

    Inline markers like [1] jump to the matching reference above.