Point-Counterpoint: The FDA Has a Role in Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests - PubMed (original) (raw)

Point-Counterpoint: The FDA Has a Role in Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests

Angela M Caliendo et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its draft guidance on the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) in October 2014, there has been a flurry of responses from commercial and hospital-based laboratory directors, clinicians, professional organizations, and diagnostic companies. The FDA defines an LDT as an "in vitrodiagnostic device that is intended for clinical use and is designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory." The draft guidance outlines a risk-based approach, with oversight of high-risk and moderate-risk tests being phased in over 9 years. High-risk tests would be regulated first and require premarket approval. Subsequently, moderate-risk tests would require a 510(k) premarket submission to the FDA and low-risk tests would need only to be registered. Oversight discretion would be exercised for LDTs focused on rare diseases (defined as fewer than 4,000 tests, not cases, per year nationally) and unmet clinical needs (defined as those tests for which there is no alternative FDA-cleared or -approved test). There was an open comment period followed by a public hearing in early January of 2015, and we are currently awaiting the final decision regarding the regulation of LDTs. Given that LDTs have been developed by many laboratories and are essential for the diagnosis and monitoring of an array of infectious diseases, changes in their regulation will have far-reaching implications for clinical microbiology laboratories. In this Point-Counterpoint, Angela Caliendo discusses the potential benefits of the FDA guidance for LDTs whereas Kim Hanson discusses the concerns associated with implementing the guidance and why these regulations may not improve clinical care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Cited by

Practical Guidance for Clinical Microbiology Laboratories: Viruses Causing Acute Respiratory Tract Infections.
Charlton CL, Babady E, Ginocchio CC, Hatchette TF, Jerris RC, Li Y, Loeffelholz M, McCarter YS, Miller MB, Novak-Weekley S, Schuetz AN, Tang YW, Widen R, Drews SJ. Charlton CL, et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018 Dec 12;32(1):e00042-18. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00042-18. Print 2019 Jan. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018. PMID: 30541871 Free PMC article.
New Molecular Diagnostic Approaches to Bacterial Infections and Antibacterial Resistance.
Tsalik EL, Bonomo RA, Fowler VG Jr. Tsalik EL, et al. Annu Rev Med. 2018 Jan 29;69:379-394. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-052716-030320. Annu Rev Med. 2018. PMID: 29414265 Free PMC article. Review.
Temporary Regulatory Deviations and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) PCR Labeling Update Study Indicate What Laboratory-Developed Test Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Could Look Like.
Marble HD, Bard AZ, Mizrachi MM, Lennerz JK. Marble HD, et al. J Mol Diagn. 2021 Oct;23(10):1207-1217. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.07.011. Epub 2021 Sep 16. J Mol Diagn. 2021. PMID: 34538703 Free PMC article. Review.
Developmental roadmap for antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems.
van Belkum A, Bachmann TT, Lüdke G, Lisby JG, Kahlmeter G, Mohess A, Becker K, Hays JP, Woodford N, Mitsakakis K, Moran-Gilad J, Vila J, Peter H, Rex JH, Dunne WM Jr; JPIAMR AMR-RDT Working Group on Antimicrobial Resistance and Rapid Diagnostic Testing. van Belkum A, et al. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019 Jan;17(1):51-62. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0098-9. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019. PMID: 30333569 Free PMC article. Review.
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Antibodies in Diverse Samples: Protocol to Validate the Sufficiency of Provider-Observed, Home-Collected Blood, Saliva, and Oropharyngeal Samples.
Sullivan PS, Sailey C, Guest JL, Guarner J, Kelley C, Siegler AJ, Valentine-Graves M, Gravens L, Del Rio C, Sanchez TH. Sullivan PS, et al. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Apr 24;6(2):e19054. doi: 10.2196/19054. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020. PMID: 32310815 Free PMC article.

References

1. Lakeman FD, Whitley RJ. 1995. Diagnosis of herpes simplex encephalitis: application of polymerase chain reaction to cerebrospinal fluid from brain-biopsied patients and correlation with disease. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Collaborative Antiviral Study Group. J Infect Dis 171:857–863. - PubMed
1. Balogh EP, Miller BT and Ball JR (ed). 2015. Improving diagnosis in health care. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. - PubMed
1. Food and Drug Administration. 2015. The public health evidence f or FDA oversight of laboratory developed tests: 20 case studies. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM472....
1. Food and Drug Administration. 2014. Draft guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and clinical laboratories: framework for regulatory oversight of laboratory developed tests. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/... Accessed December 2015.
1. Kotton CN, Kumar D, Caliendo AM, Asberg A, Chou S, Danziger-Isakov L, Humar A. 2013. Updated international consensus guidelines on the management of cytomegalovirus in solid-organ transplantation. Transplantation 96:333–360. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e31829df29d. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
- The Lens - Patent Citations Database
- scite Smart Citations
Medical
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Point-Counterpoint: The FDA Has a Role in Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests - PubMed (original) (raw)