Regulatory
serious, but the real effect will not be felt for three or four years,” says Dr Jonathan Genzen, the chief medical officer at ARUP Laboratories. “It will harm innovation. Is it worth going forward with a new test that might not justify the cost when development is becoming more expensive and reimbursement is getting lower?” The FDA clearly thinks the pain is worth it. Though
it declined to be interviewed by Medical Device Developments, the regulator has previously stated that patients and healthcare providers require assurances that any tests they use are safe and effective, but that it currently cannot give these assurances for IVDs without more active oversight. To quote Robert Califf, the FDA commissioner, “a growing number of clinical diagnostic tests are being offered as laboratory-developed tests without assurance that they work. The stakes are getting higher as these tests are increasingly being used to drive treatment decisions.”
External experts make a similar point. “The FDA
is concerned that the public health risks associated with LDTs are greater today than they were when the agency initially adopted its enforcement discretion policy for such tests,” says Greg Levine, partner at law firm Ropes and Gray and chair of its global FDA regulatory group. “It claims that, compared to past use of LDTs, today’s LDTs are used more widely, by a more diverse patient population, with an increasing reliance on high-tech instrumentation and software, and more frequently for the purpose of guiding critical healthcare decisions.”
Amid the furore, though, are there signs that the FDA’s rule tweak may ultimately not amount to that much? After all, that headline sentence masks a detailed discussion in the preamble – over 500 pages in its pre-publication form – explaining how the FDA expects laboratories to come to terms with the new requirements. Strikingly, some LDTs are already expected to be in compliance, while others are expected to become so over the next four years. Even stragglers are only likely to come under “enforcement discretion” – implying that there will probably be no great pressure to achieve compliance under the current FDA leadership.
A war of words To unravel these regulatory complexities, perhaps the best place to start is understanding why the new rules were introduced. Beyond worries around the reliability of LDTs, the FDA’s statements on the issue suggest they were prodded into action by the rising importance of tests in driving treatment decisions. Citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, the FDA has stated that 70% of medical decisions now depend on laboratory test results.
At the same time, the rules are not dissimilar to the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), which came
Medical Device Developments /
www.nsmedicaldevices.com
into force in the EU in 2022. Importantly, the IVDR also considers LDTs a category of IVD, and provides an overarching regulatory framework that includes tests made and used by healthcare institutions, as well as conventional device manufacturers. Both the US and EU rules emphasise increased regulatory oversight of laboratories. Yet right from the off, opponents of the new rule, including ARUP, believe the FDA is overstepping its bounds.
“The FDA asserts that it has unambiguous authority,” says Genzen. “It claims it was authorised to regulate LDTs under a 1976 act, but actually only in 1992 did it even acknowledge that they knew about LDTs. The new rule does not align well with how people seek medical care.”
Under the so-called ‘unmet needs’ provision, a healthcare system other than the patient’s own might treat that patient, or can test that patient’s specimens. In other words, a cancer patient may need specimens tested by a different hospital.
The new rule could have a big impact on this process if, for instance, a patient is in desperate need of fast results. There is concern that a lack of financial incentives to develop LDTs for unmet needs, coupled with the cost of compliance with pre-market review, might impede the development and delivery of LDTs for unmet needs. Genzen and others believe that the new rule will affect how care can be delivered at the most crucial times. A public statement from ARUP suggests that the FDA simply does not have the staff to support a hundred or thousand-fold increase in regulatory submissions, nor is it likely that such professional expertise could be reasonably hired. The implication is that – contrary to the FDA’s intentions – the rule would lead directly to a reduction of existing and future safe and essential testing.
“The FDA believes that it has the authority to regulate
LDTs, and that is the first point of controversy,” Genzen explains. “Many believe that it does not have such a mandate from Congress. The FDA takes its mission of ensuring protection of public health very seriously, but laboratories are already regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under CLIA [Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments].” No less important, Genzen suggests that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could improve transparency itself, with many in the laboratory community arguing for CLIA moderation to improve visibility of LDTs. But the HHS – for reasons that Genzen and others do not understand – has directed for such issues to be handled by the FDA. Beyond what the FDA legally has the right to demand, meanwhile, there are also questions around that 500- page pre-publication document. “The rule itself is only ten words,” Genzen says, “but the preamble is all about exceptions, and a lot will be subject to FDA
2.33%
The expected annual growth rate that the US market for IVDs is estimated to experience from 2024 to 2029, resulting in a market volume of US$33.78bn by 2029.
Statista 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150
