The requirements of nucleic acid test for COVID-19 during public health emergency: Current regulatory in Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States.

In mid-2022, the COVID-19 cases have reached close to 562 million, but its overall infection rate is hard to confirm. Even with effective vaccines, break-through infections with new variants occur, and safe and reliable testing still plays a critical role in isolation of infected individuals and in control of an outbreak of a COVID-19 pandemic. In response to this urgent need, the diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are rapidly evolving and improving these days. The health authorities of many countries issued requirements for detecting SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis tests during the pandemic and have timely access to these tests to ensure safety and effectiveness. In this study, we compared the requirements of EUA in Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States. For the performance evaluations of nucleic acid extraction, inclusivity, limit of detection (LoD), cross-reactivity, interference, cutoff, and stability, the requirements are similar in the three countries. The use of natural clinical specimens is needed for clinical evaluation in Taiwan and the United States. However, carry-over and cross-contamination studies can be exempted in Taiwan and the United States but are required in Singapore. This review outlines requirements and insight to guide the test developers on the development of IVDs. Considering the rapidly evolving viruses and severe pandemic of COVID-19, timely and accurate diagnostic testing is imperative to the management of diseases. As noted above, the performance requirements for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests are similar between Taiwan, Singapore and the United States. The differences are mainly in two points: the recommended microorganisms for cross-reactivity study, and the specimen requirement for clinical evaluation. This study provides an overview of current requirements of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests in Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States.

A comparison study of Taiwan regulation and GHTF regulatory model on in vitro diagnostic medical devices.

INTRODUCTION: In Taiwan, In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) is regulated as medical device since 1987, and the implementation of IVD registration was fully completed in 2005. The management system of IVD medical device is highly similar with a guidance 'The GHTF Regulatory Model' developed by Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) in 2011 for use of regulation development on medical devices. Area covered: In this study, the Regulatory Model developed by GHTF was compared with Taiwanese IVD management system and it has shown that these two regulatory frameworks are highly similar. Expert commentary: The experience of IVD management in Taiwan can serve a strong evidence to prove the feasibility and effectiveness of GHTF Regulatory Model.

A study of medical device regulation management model in Asia.

INTRODUCTION: With the aging of the post-war baby boomer generation, the increasing demands for healthcare are driving the growth of medical industry and development of new products in order to meet the immense needs from the aging population. However, medical devices are designed to maintain the health and safety of people, therefore, medical devices are undergoing rigorous management by competent health authorities in all countries. In recent years, Asian countries have been reforming their regulations and standards for medical devices with substantial changes. AREAS COVERED: The study is a summary of the framework of medical device regulations in Asian countries, including Asian Harmonization Working Party (AHWP), Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea, India and Singapore. Expert commentary: Asian countries are constantly reforming their medical device regulations. The emergence of brand-new technology and quality management issues arose by global manufacturing have imposed difficulties in harmonizing and reaching consensus between countries. The third-party conformity assessment system for medical devices can reduce the costs for competent health authorities and shorten the review time, which could facilitate the feasibility of harmonization of medical device regulations.