Affiliation:
1. Department of Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
2. Departments of Medicine and Pathology, Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Abstract
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Since the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its draft guidance on the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) in October 2014, there has been a flurry of responses from commercial and hospital-based laboratory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 vitro
diagnostic 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 The draft guidance outlines a risk-based approach, with oversight of high-risk and moderate-risk tests being phased in over 9 years.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.
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Reference12 articles.
1. 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;Lakeman FD;J Infect Dis,1995
2. 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.
3. 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/UCM472777.pdf.
4. 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/guidancedocuments/ucm416685.pdf. Accessed December 2015.
5. Updated International Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Cytomegalovirus in Solid-Organ Transplantation
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献