The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for in vitro diagnostics under a Section 564 public health declaration broke little new conceptual ground, but the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) urged the agency to reconsider the COVID-19 experience.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA already are getting a glimpse of the post-Chevron world and how the Supreme Court’s June 28 unwinding of the 40-year-old Chevron deference could rein in agency policies that defy Congress’ expressed intent.
The American Clinical Laboratory Association has followed through on its promise to file suit against the U.S. FDA over the agency’s final rule for lab-developed tests. The lawsuit will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which is also the venue for litigation against another federal government agency, the Federal Trade Commission, suggesting that litigants expect a favorable review of their case in this court.
The U.S. FDA’s final rule for lab-developed tests was a long time in coming even if the agency shorted the public comment period for the draft rule, and the final rule makes several major concessions about circumstances in which the agency would exercise enforcement discretion.
The U.S. FDA’s final rule for regulation of lab-developed tests was hardly a shock to the world of regulation, but the final rule might provide a shock for sorts for smaller entities in the diagnostics space. Analysts with Leerink Partners said most companies they routinely track are unlikely to be immediately affected by the final rule, but noted that FDA regulation might make it tougher for smaller, new entries to the space to get to market.
The U.S. FDA has posted the long-awaited final rule for lab-developed tests, which amends the draft rule in a few key respects, but Reps. Diana DeGette and Larry Buchson, once again voiced their opposition to the rule. DeGette and Bucshon acknowledged that congressional inaction has left the FDA with few choices, but called again for passage of the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act, which they said is critical because “burdensome regulation of these medical products creates uncertainty in the future of innovation and patient care.”
While the U.S. FDA’s final rule for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs) has yet to emerge, there is some reason to expect the rule will be met with litigation from clinical lab associations. The FDA’s Jeff Shuren said in remarks to this year’s meeting of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association that there is a legitimate problem with the accuracy of many LDTs, adding that while stakeholders are at liberty to question the FDA’s rulemaking, the agency’s experience in this area indicates that the question of LDT reliability is not up for debate.
The U.S. FDA’s pending final rule for regulation of lab-developed tests has proven unusually controversial even for the FDA, but Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) stated in a March 21 hearing that congressional inaction has left the agency in an uncomfortable spot.
The U.S. FDA has announced the next stage in its program to down-classify a series of in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) from class III to class II, a change that would significantly ease the premarket requirements for these test types. Much of the emphasis here is on companion diagnostic (CDx) tests, a category of products that is the focus of a separate FDA imperative, but there are those who view this down-classification regime as little more than a meager attempt to paste over a massive impending regulatory overhang.
The question of the U.S. FDA’s statutory authority to regulate lab-developed tests (LDTs) is still percolating, and the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have issued a joint statement that takes aim at that very question.
