Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, will discuss what clinical laboratories need to know about the draft LDT rule, FDA memo on assay reclassification, and ISO-13485 harmonization
Many clinical laboratories anxiously await a final rule from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is expected to establish federal policies under which the agency will regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs). The agency released a proposed rule on Oct. 3, 2023, setting a Dec. 4 deadline for submission of comments. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget received a draft of the final rule less than three months later on March 1, 2024.
“Given how fast it moved through HHS, the final [rule] is likely pretty close” to the draft version, wrote former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, in a post on LinkedIn. Gottlieb and other regulatory experts expect the White House to submit the final rule to Congress no later than May 22, and perhaps as soon as this month.
Stenzel, who retired from the FDA last year, emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of the federal agency and that he adheres to all FDA confidentiality requirements. He formed a new company—Grey Haven LLC—through which he is accepting speaking engagements in what he describes as a public service.
“I’m taking a wait and see approach,” said Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD (above), former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics, in an interview with Dark Daily. “The rule is not finalized. The FDA received thousands of comments. It’s my impression that the FDA takes those comments seriously. Until the rule is published, we don’t know what it will say, so I don’t think it does any good to make assumptions.” Clinical laboratory leaders will have an opportunity to learn how to prepare for FDA regulation of LDTs directly from Stenzel at the upcoming Executive War College in May. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
FDA’s History of LDT Regulation
Prior to his five-year stint at the agency, Stenzel held high-level positions at diagnostics manufacturers Invivoscribe, Quidel Corporation, Asuragen, and Abbott Laboratories. He also directed the clinical molecular diagnostics laboratory at Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina. In the latter role, during the late 1990s, he oversaw development of numerous LDTs, he said.
The FDA, he observed, has long taken the position that it has authority to regulate LDTs. However, since the 1970s, after Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the agency has generally exercised “enforcement discretion,” he said, in which it declined to regulate most of these tests.
At the time, “many LDTs were lower risk, small volume, and used for specialized needs of a local patient population,” the agency stated in a press release announcing the proposed rule. “Since then, due to changes in business practices and increasing ability to ship patient specimens across the country quickly, many LDTs are now used more widely, for a larger and more diverse population, with large laboratories accepting specimens from across the country.”
Clinical Labs Need a Plan for Submission of LDTs to FDA
The FDA proposed the new rule after Congress failed to vote on the VALID Act (Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development Act of 2021), which would have established a statutory framework for FDA oversight of LDTs. Citing public comments from FDA officials, Stenzel believes the agency would have preferred the legislative approach. But when that failed, “they thought they needed to act, which left them with the rulemaking path,” he said.
The new rule, as proposed, would phase out enforcement discretion in five stages over four years, he noted. Labs would have to begin submitting high-risk tests for premarket review about three-and-a-half years from publication of the final rule, but not before Oct. 1, 2027. Premarket review requirements for moderate- or low-risk tests would follow about six months later.
While he suggested a “wait and see” approach to the final rule, he advises labs that might be affected to develop a plan for dealing with it.
Potential Lawsuits
Stenzel also noted the likelihood of litigation in which labs or other stakeholders will seek to block implementation of the rule. “It’s a fairly widespread belief that there will be a lawsuit or lawsuits that will take this issue through the courts,” he said. “That could take several years. There is no guarantee that the courts will ultimately side with the FDA.”
He acknowledged that it is a controversial issue among clinical laboratories. Many labs have voiced opposition to the rule as well as the Valid Act.
Currently in retirement, Stenzel says he is making himself available as a resource through public speaking for laboratory professionals and other test developers who are seeking insights about the agency.
“The potential value that I bring is recent experience with the FDA and with stakeholders both inside and outside the FDA,” he said, adding that during his presentations he likes “to leave plenty of time for open-ended questions.”
In the case of his talks at the Executive War College, Stenzel said he anticipates “a robust conversation.”
He also expects to address other FDA-related issues, including:
A recent memo in which the agency said it would begin reclassifying most high-risk In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) tests—those in class III (high risk)—into class II (moderate to high risk).
The emergence of multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests, which he described as a “hot topic in the LDT world.” The FDA has not yet approved any MCD tests, but some are available as LDTs.
A new voluntary pilot program in which the FDA will evaluate LDTs in situations where the agency has approved a treatment but has not authorized a corresponding companion diagnostic.
An FDA effort to harmonize ISO 13485—a set of international standards governing development of medical devices and diagnostics—with the agency’s own quality system regulations. Compliance with the ISO standards is necessary to market products in many countries outside the US, particularly in Europe, Stenzel noted. Harmonization will simplify product development, he said, because manufacturers won’t have to follow two or more sets of rules.
To learn how to prepare for the FDA’s future regulation of LDTs, clinical laboratory and pathology group managers would be wise to attend Stenzel’s presentations at this year’s Executive War College. Visit here to learn more and to secure your seat in New Orleans.
Though response was limited in Dark Daily’s poll, the message from respondents was overwhelmingly negative on LDT regulation by the FDA
Most respondents to a recent industry survey said that should Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval be required in the future for laboratory developed tests (LDTs), innovation will suffer.
In the survey, which was conducted by Dark Daily, 91% of respondents said FDA pre-market approval of LDTs would decrease clinical laboratories’ ability to bring innovative tests to market. (See Figure 1.) The other 9% felt it would have no effect on innovation. Zero of the respondents said FDA involvement would increase innovative tests.
Figure 1: “How might a requirement of FDA pre-market approval impact the ability of your lab (or a lab you work for) to bring innovative tests to market?“
“Development of LDT tests has been the mission of most of the labs, and it meets the need for patient care,” noted one respondent in the survey. “Moving LDTs under FDA will create more obstacles for labs to offer the tests.”
To be fair, the survey had limited responses—34 in total. The poll went out to thousands of Dark Daily readers. We found that response rate surprising given how many labs will be affected if the VALID Act becomes law.
The VALID Act is a bipartisan bill that proposes FDA oversight of laboratory developed tests. The bill continues to make its way through the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.
A counterproposal called the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act (VITAL Act) is also before Congress but has less momentum behind it. The VITAL Act seeks to keep LDTs under CLIA while also calling for reforms to account for modern lab tests.
Looking at survey results, 80% “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” that new LDT requirements, such as those found in the VALID Act, are needed. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2: “FDA pre-market approval of LDTs should be required, as proposed in the VALID Act.”
By comparison, 65% “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with modernizing CLIA requirements for LDTs, as called for in the VITAL Act.
Those numbers shifted somewhat depending on the lab setting of the respondent. For example, just looking at commercial labs, opposition to the VALID Act remained similar, but support for modernizing CLIA jumped up to 88%. When looking at just hospitals, independent labs, and academic labs, numbers for both topics remained consistent.
When filtering the answers, the number of lab employees in a setting had little effect on survey results.
Political Battle Continues Over Laboratory Developed Tests
Clinical laboratory industry groups and others have been amassing to oppose or support the VALID Act. For example, the Advanced Medical Technology Association and The Pew Charitable Trusts are behind the bill.
However, the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Association for Molecular Pathology, and new Coalition for Innovative Laboratory Testing are against the VALID Act.
This comprehensive white paper is designed to be your go-to guide, providing invaluable insights into critical success factors and essential functions crucial for maintaining compliance and delivering reliable results. Tailored for clinical molecular laboratory staff, this resource delves into the tangible aspects of compliant method validation, offering practical strategies for proving the accuracy and efficacy of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs).
Prior to that, however, the FDA had already announced its intention to issue a proposed rule giving the agency regulatory oversight of LDTs.
“The FDA has continually supported the passage of the VALID Act by Congress,” attorney Charles Dunham IV, a Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig LLP in Houston, told Dark Daily. “In fact, there is speculation that the VALID Act will be attached to the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act as it moves through Congress.”
“The FDA may not actually proceed with promulgating rules to regulate LDTs if it is concerned it will not be successful in court if the rules are challenged, which would happen,” said attorney Charles Dunham IV (above), a Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Clinical laboratory leaders can learn more from Dunham during a panel discussion at next week’s 2023 Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management in New Orleans. (Photo copyright: Greenberg Traurig LLP.)
Arguments For and Against FDA LDT Regulation of LDTs
Supporters of the VALID Act contend that putting LDTs under FDA regulation will lead to improved patient safety and less review for low-risk tests. Their argument is that LDTs should undergo the same FDA review and approval process as other medical devices.
Hospital laboratory managers and pathologists—particularly in academic medical center laboratories—have largely opposed FDA regulation of LDTs. They prefer to keep the current setup under which lab-developed tests are validated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). They argue that FDA intervention will slow down development of new tests.
In response, an FDA official indicated during the American Clinical Laboratory Association’s (ACLA) annual meeting on March 1 that the federal agency plans to issue a proposed rule to regulate LDTs, BioWorld reported. That rulemaking has not yet emerged. It’s possible the FDA will wait and see what happens in Congress with the VALID Act.
“Some legal experts have suggested that one significant new legal challenge FDA may face is the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision last summer that limited the ability of the EPA to cap power plant emissions by regulation due to the EPA’s lack of explicit congressional authority to do so,” said Gee, who also will appear on the Executive War College legal panel next week.
“The West Virginia v. EPA ruling provides support for those in the clinical lab industry who point to the FDA’s lack of clear statutory authority to regulate LDTs and therefore fundamentally disagree with FDA’s longstanding position that LDTs are medical devices subject to FDA’s authority to regulate,” he added.
Actions Clinical Laboratory Managers Can Take
Clinical laboratory managers who want to share their thoughts about the future of LDT regulation may want to take one or both of the following actions:
Contact their representatives in Congress.
Find out whether any trade associations they belong to have taken a position on the VALID Act.
Clinical laboratory professionals should monitor the VALID Act’s progress while also paying attention to industry groups and manufacturers that support or oppose the bill.
Doing so will provide a clearer indication of who has the most to gain or lose should the legislation be passed. Pathologists and medical laboratory managers should also remain alert for further efforts by the FDA to issue proposed rulemaking to regulate LDTs.
But even though the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and nine other organizations signed a December 12 stakeholder letter to leaders of key House and Senate committees urging passage of legislation that would enable some regulation of LDTs, the VALID Act was ultimately omitted from the year-end omnibus spending bill (H.R. 2617).
That may be due to pressure from organizations representing clinical laboratories and pathologists which lobbied hard against the bill.
Responding to criticism of its stance on FDA oversight of LDTs, in a May 2022 open letter posted on the organization’s website, anatomic pathologist and CAP president Emily Volk, MD, said “we at the CAP have an honest difference of opinion with some other respected laboratory organizations. … We believe the VALID Act is the only viable piece of legislation addressing the LDT issue. … the VALID Act contains many provisions that are similar to policy the CAP has advocated for regarding the regulation of laboratory tests since 2009. Importantly, the current version includes explicit protections for pathologists and our ability to practice medicine without infringement from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” (Photo copyright: College of American Pathologists.)
Organizations on Both Sides Brought Pressure to Bear on Legislators
The AAMC and AMP were especially influential, Bucshon told ProPublica. In addition to spending hefty sums on lobbying, AMP urged its members to contact legislators directly and provided talking points, ProPublica reported.
“The academic medical centers and big medical centers are in every state,” Bucshon said. As major employers in many locales, they have “a pretty big voice,” he added.
Discussing CAP’s reasoning behind its support of the VALID Act in a May 26 open letter and podcast, CAP president Emily Volk, MD, said the Valid Act “creates a risk-based system of oversight utilizing three tiers—low, moderate and high risk—in order to target the attention of the FDA oversight.”
While acknowledging that it had room for improvement, she lauded the bill’s three-tier risk-based system, in which tests deemed to have the greatest risks would receive the highest level of scrutiny.
She also noted that the bill exempts existing LDTs from an FDA premarket review “unless there is a safety concern for patients.” It would also exempt “low-volume tests, modified tests, manual interpretation tests, and humanitarian tests,” she wrote.
In addition, the bill would “direct the FDA not to create regulations that are duplicative of regulation under CLIA,” she noted, and “would require the FDA to conduct public hearings on LDT oversight.”
Pros and Cons of the VALID Act
One concern raised by opponents relates to how the VALID Act addressed user fees paid by clinical laboratories to fund FDA compliance activities. But Volk wrote that any specific fees “would need to be approved by Congress in a future FDA user fee authorization bill after years of public input.”
During the May 2022 podcast, Volk also cast CAP’s support as a matter of recognizing political realities.
“We understand that support for FDA oversight of laboratory-developed tests or IVCTs is present on both sides of the aisle and in both houses of Congress,” she said. “In fact, it enjoys wide support among very influential patient advocacy groups.” These groups “are very sophisticated in their understanding of the issues with laboratory-developed tests, and they do have the ear of Congress. There are many in the laboratory community that believe the VALID Act goes too far, but I can tell you that many of these patient groups don’t believe it goes far enough and are actively pushing for even more restrictive paradigms.”
Also urging passage of the bill were former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark B. McClellan, MD, PhD. In a Dec. 5 opinion piece for STAT, they noted that “diagnostic technologies have undergone considerable advances in recent decades, owing to innovation in fields like genomics, proteomics, and data science.” However, they wrote, laws governing FDA oversight “have not kept pace,” placing the agency in a position of regulating tests based on where they are made—in a medical laboratory or by a manufacturer—instead of their “distinctive complexity or potential risks.”
In their May 22 letter, opponents of the legislation outlined broad areas of concern. They contended that it would create “an onerous and complex system that would radically alter the way that laboratory testing is regulated to the detriment of patient care.” And even though existing tests would be largely exempted from oversight, “the utility of these tests would diminish over time as the VALID Act puts overly restrictive constraints on how they can be modified.”
CLIA Regulation of LDTs also Under Scrutiny
The provision to avoid duplication with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) program—which currently has some regulatory oversight of LDTs and IVCTs—is “insufficient,” opponents added, “especially when other aspects of the legislation call for requirements and activities that lead to duplicative and unnecessary regulatory burden.”
Opponents to the VALID Act also argued that the definitions of high-, medium-, and low-risk test categories lacked clarity, stating that “the newly created definition of moderate risk appears to overlap with the definition of high risk.”
The opponents also took issue with the degree of discretion that the bill grants to the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. This will create “an unpredictable regulatory process and ambiguities in the significance of the policy,” they wrote, while urging the Senate committee to “narrow the discretion so that stakeholders may better evaluate and understand the implications of this legislation.”
Decades ago, clinical laboratory researchers were allowed to develop assays in tandem with clinicians that were intended to provide accurate diagnoses, earlier detection of disease, and help guide selection of therapies. Since the 1990s, however, an industry of investor-funded laboratory companies have brought proprietary LDTs to the national market. Many recognize that this falls outside the government’s original intent for encouragement of laboratory-developed tests to begin with.
