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.
The U.S. FDA has commenced with a pilot program for companion diagnostics (CDx) for oncology therapies, which fulfills in part a 2014 agency guidance on the use of CDx. The FDA expects to enroll only nine reference drugs and the associated companion test, but the pilot program is part of the FDA’s controversial attempt to deal with lab-developed tests (LDTs), specifically those tests that are used to determine whether a patient is likely to respond to a particular oncology treatment.
As calendar year 2023 limps to the finish line, a number of important regulatory developments emerged and then submerged, but one development that is also a non-development took center stage in the world of med tech. The U.S. FDA has proposed a regulation for lab-developed tests (LDTs), an issue that has been simmering for the better part of a decade thanks in no small part to Congress’ failure to pass legislation that would eliminate the FDA’s controversial approach to rulemaking.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rule for lab-developed tests (LDTs) has proven to be every bit as controversial as expected, although the controversy is only marginally about the workload that would come with rulemaking.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rule for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs) was accorded a mere 60 days for comment, but nonetheless drew support from a number of stakeholders, including Foundation Medicine of Cambridge, Mass.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rulemaking for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs) came with a conspicuously short comment period of 60 days, but the agency is unresponsive to requests to add another 30 days to the comment period.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rule for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs) was a long time in coming, much longer than any legislative proposals to overhaul the agency’s regulatory mechanisms for these tests. Nonetheless, Scott Whitaker, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (Advamed), believes that the FDA draft rule is likely to prompt Congress to pass the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT development (VALID) Act, a development that would truncate an FDA final rule that would almost certainly face litigation.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rule for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs) carries an exceptionally ambitious timeline of completion and enactment by the time the next user fee agreement kicks in, and some see big problems with the timeline laid out by the agency. However, the FDA’s Elizabeth Hillebrenner said that Congress can tweak user fee legislation such that a specific set of user fee sources kicks in off schedule, thus giving the agency a little more leeway in completing any activity related to the proposed rule.
The U.S. FDA has finally let fly with a draft rule for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs), an 83-page document that delves into the legal controversies regarding whether the agency has the requisite statutory authority. However, Allyson Mullen, a director in the D.C. office of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara P.C., told BioWorld that the emergence of this draft rule doesn’t mean Congress won’t eventually be dragged back into the LDT fray, particularly if stakeholders litigate to overturn the draft.