FDA Pre-cert Program for Lab-Developed Tests

The FDA may begin certifying the laboratories that produce lab-developed tests (“LDTs”) instead of drafting regulatory rules to cover the tests themselves.  The American Clinical Laboratory Association describes LDTs as:

[T]ests that hospitals, academic, and clinical laboratories develop as testing services according to their own procedures.  These tests are often created in response to unmet clinical needs, and are commonly used for early and precise diagnosis, monitoring, and guiding patient treatment.

The organization believes that the ability to innovate and design custom diagnostic tests has been critical to the growth of personalized medicine and keeping pace with the changes in the medical profession.

According to Sean Khozin, associate acting director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, the program will be modeled after the FDA’s pilot approval process for digital health products. This process functions as a stamp of approval by the FDA, Mr. Khozin explained that:

The precertification program represents a modern approach to regulation, shifting the focus from the product, to the developer of the product . . . .  That product then doesn’t necessarily have to go through analytical validation process.

This program may be compared to to the Digital Health Software Precertification (“Pre-cert”) Program that was announced in July, 2017.  The agency picked nine companies for the program, including Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent company), Apple Inc., and Fitbit Inc. Under the Digital Health SOftware Pre-cert program, the FDA will examine the software (rather than the device itself) and inspect facilities to ensure they meets the FDA’s standards.  If the companies pass the audit, the companies will attain pre-certified status and their products will be pre-cleared in lieu of being examined by the FDA’s traditional regulatory framework.

Regulating LDTs has been an issue that the FDA has considered in response to a “boom” in the diagnostics industry and as more physicians demand complex tests to screen for diseases like breast cancer and Alzheimer’s.

The medical device and clinical laboratory industries have been at odds over the question of LDT regulation since 2014, when the FDA first sought to regulate LDTs.  Device makers supported the FDA’s regulation-based approach while clinical labs, which were already regulated by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, disagreed.  The FDA dropped its enforcement proposals in 2016.  The American Clinical Laboratory Association, whose members traditionally have been regulated under CLIA, said:

[The ACLA] has consistently maintained that LDTs are not medical devices and cannot be regulated as such. The decision by the FDA last year to not issue final guidance to regulate LDTs was a victory for diagnostic innovation and for patients.

The FDA is now expected to announce a new pilot plan soon to certify laboratories that develop diagnostic tests in lieu of drafting rules for the tests themselves. The plan for the LDTs do not seem to conflict with CLIA rules as the CLIA rules does not concern manufacturers, the CLIA rules concern labs.

 

 

Alexander Zeng
Alexander D. Zeng practices intellectual property law, with a focus on patent prosecution and litigation in medical device technologies. Prior to joining the firm, he worked as a research scientist for Dr. Hussein Yasine at USC where he was involved with research on the effect of APOE e4 on brain lipids. He graduated from the University of California Los Angeles with his B.S. in Bioengineering and the University of Southern California with his M.S. in Medical Device and Diagnostic Engineering. During law school at the University of California Irvine, Alexander was a Research Editor on Law Review and was a member of the UCI Intellectual Property, Art, and Technology clinic where he worked on start-up counseling, trademark prosecution, and fair use analysis for documentary film makers.
View all posts published by Alexander Zeng »

Leave a Reply

By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.