Guest Post By David L. Rosen, Nathan A. Beaver and Jennifer M. Forde
In a remarkable move, the Food and Drug Administration recently indicated that it plans to take new steps to regulate laboratory-developed tests (“LDTs”). FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg made the significant announcement during a speech on June 2, 2013, at an annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Historically, FDA has exercised enforcement discretion when regulating LDTs and generally exempted them from regulatory requirements because LDTs have often consisted of low-risk diagnostics or tests for rare diseases with a physician evaluating the test results in the laboratory. Consequently, LDTs oftentimes have been marketed without premarket review by FDA.
In recent years, LDTs have become increasingly complex, with physicians relying on LDTs for clinical decision-making in personalized medicine and cancer screening. Because many LDTs are currently marketed without premarket review, Commissioner Hamburg announced that FDA is developing a risk-based framework to regulate LDTs and evaluate their safety and efficacy. In doing so, according to Commissioner Hamburg, FDA plans to “provide medical professionals with a critical baseline for confidence in the tests they order for their patients.”
Though Commissioner Hamburg did not elaborate on when FDA plans to carry out this new enforcement policy with respect to LDTs, Commissioner Hamburg’s comments are expected to have a forceful impact on the diagnostics industry, where many historically have not been compelled to undergo the rigors of premarket review for LDT products. It is possible that FDA will pursue a stratified approach and begin its enforcement efforts by targeting the more complex tests relied upon for clinical decision-making. Renewed enforcement efforts by FDA would also likely raise questions as to whether new fields, such as DNA sequencing, would be treated as LDTs. In light of these remarkable implications, the diagnostic industry will be closely watching for more detailed guidance by FDA on its planned changes to the current scheme of LDT regulation.
Stay tuned as we continue to follow this important legal and regulatory issue.
David L. Rosen, Nathan A. Beaver and Jennifer M. Forde are legal experts advising clients on regulatory issues and are resident in Foley & Lardner’s Washington, DC office.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.