May 23, 2012

FDA's Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) - Changes on Horizon?

For years, the Food and Drug Administration has maintained that it has jurisdiction over laboratory-developed tests (“LDTs”) – those in vitro tests developed, validated and used for in-house pathology and diagnostic purposes – as medical devices. Yet the Agency has, with some few exceptions (e.g., IVDMIAs), exercised enforcement discretion, reasoning that most LDTs were simple, well-characterized, and reliant upon various FDA-regulated individual components. As LDTs have become increasingly complex and the laboratory setting increasingly large-scale, FDA has begun rethinking its regulatory approach.

To this end, the Agency has announced that it will hold a public meeting on oversight of LDTs on July 19-20, 2010, in Rockville, Maryland. Sessions at the meeting include (1) patient considerations; (2) challenges for laboratories; (3) direct-to-consumer marketing of testing (DTC); and (4) education and outreach. Interested persons can request time to make a brief presentation and/or can submit written comments to the relevant docket.

In its announcement of the meeting, FDA specifically raises concerns about use of LDTs for genetic testing and “personalized medicine,” the use of LDTs outside of the physician-patient context, and the development of LDTs by larger corporations. In the Agency’s view, the shifting terrain and complexity both increase the risks of misdiagnosis. Questions about FDA’s exercise of enforcement discretion have been looming at least since the 1997 report of the NIH-DOE Joint Task Force on Genetic Testing. Moreover, the regulations that once would have been so evidently burdensome if borne by small labs offering simple tests and/or specialized tests for rare disease now meet a marketplace with a new economy of scale. This marketplace and its complexities are, in turn, changing FDA’s calculus about enforcement discretion.

From the laboratory perspective, a robust regulatory framework already governs LDTs. Some stakeholders point to the comprehensive regulatory scheme established under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) (42 U.S.C. § 263a), which require extensive proficiency and quality-control testing for laboratories. The CLIA applies special scrutiny to LDTs precisely because they have not faced FDA clearance. Furthermore, most of the reagents in use for these tests fall within the FDA’s 1997 Analyte Specific Reagents (ASR) rule. And, arguably, those who develop and use LDTs sell only a diagnostic service, not a medical device. Thus, FDA has nothing to regulate.

From the Agency’s meeting-notice, a different view emerges. FDA suggests that its hands-off approach may have disincentivized innovation by manufacturers who must seek FDA approval, yet it also acknowledges the dependence of innovation upon an appropriate oversight framework, particularly in areas such as genomics, genetic testing, and diagnostics for rare diseases, areas in which medicine is highly reliant upon LDTs. In the Agency’s words, “In these and other categories, it is important that FDA provide a reasonable, predictable, and consistent regulatory policy for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of LDTs and provide sufficient time for implementation. Therefore, this policy should encourage innovation, improve patient outcomes, strengthen patient confidence in the reliability of these products, and help reduce health care costs.”

As FDA seeks to create a phased-in, risk-based oversight framework for LDTs, it seeks input from laboratory professionals, clinicians, patients, and industry. After the public meeting, the Agency intends to move quickly toward a draft framework, on which the public is invited to comment.

There is no registration fee to attend the public meeting, but registrations must be submitted to FDA by 5 pm on July 12, 2010, and can be completed online by clicking here, or by telephone at (301) 796-6652. Requests to present at the meeting must be submitted via the FDA contact information provided in the Federal Register announcement of the public workshop, which can be found here. Finally, regardless of attendance at the public meeting, persons are also invited to submit written comments to FDA concerning the FDA's regulation of LDTs. The comment period is scheduled to close August 15, 2010.
 

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Partner

Deborah M. Shelton is a partner in the Food and Drug Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. She serves as co-leader of the firm's Life Sciences group. Ms. Shelton concentrates her practice in the area of FDA and DEA law, with a particular emphasis on drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Ms. Shelton's practice also focuses on products regulated by other agencies and regulatory bodies, including the CPSC, USDA, U.S. Customs, and NHTSA.

202-772-5351

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.