The House Energy and Commerce Committee is drafting language that will help create an in vitro center within the FDA to define risk categories for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and set timelines to accelerate the approval process for LDTs.
Regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) has been vigorously debated for a while now, especially after the FDA announced that it'd develop a risk-based oversight framework for these tests, which are, by definition, designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory.
Reactions following the announcement were mixed: both the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network supported the FDA’s action, citing a need for a stronger evidence base in diagnostics. However, the American Medical Association and the Association for Molecular Pathology, along with the testing industry’s trade group, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), opposed the move. ACLA wants regulation of LDTs to fall under CMS' Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) program, and have called for a modernization of the CLIA program instead.
Now, the House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) has developed a bill that classifies LDTs based on their characterization and the impact of an adverse result on public health. Additionally, timelines set within the bill would help accelerate the review/approval process within the FDA to improve public access to the tests. While the committee had a placeholder for LDTs in the original Cures bill, it was eliminated in the approved proposal and is now being floated as an independent bill.
While the final decision for approving or rejecting the LDT lies with the FDA, they have to provide the test-developer the rational behind their decision within a 60-day period. While establishing clinical utility is not a requirement for high-risk tests, manufacturers/developers have to ensure analytical and clnical validity of the test. Moderate-risk tests, the bill proposes, would only need data supporting analytical validity, and a "reasonable belief" that it is clinically valid for its proposed use.
The E&C draft's proposed “Center for In Vitro Clinical Tests” would be responsible for the implementation of the new regulatory structure.
Lack of Mutations Associated With Favorable Prognosis in MPN-U
April 25th 2024While the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and bone marrow blasts may predict overall survival, the lack of certain mutations is also associated with a better prognosis for myeloproliferative neoplasm, unclassifiable (MPN-U).
Read More
HOPE-CAT Can Identify Maternal Cardiovascular Risk 2 Months Earlier Than Doctors, Study Says
April 25th 2024In a retrospective study, the machine learning tool was able to screen for potential risks of cardiovascular disease nearly 60 days before the patient's medical record showed any signs of a related condition or before they were officially diagnosed or treated for it.
Read More
Data Back Neoadjuvant Combo vs Chemo Alone for Early-Stage NSCLC
April 24th 2024For patients with early-stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combining neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy improves 2-year outcomes over chemotherapy alone, suggest findings of an extensive literature review and meta-analysis.
Read More