Get Ready for FDA Oversight of Laboratory Developed

Get Ready for FDA Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests November 4, 2010 Presenter: Robert Footlik, MS, MT(ASCP), HCLD(ABB) Laboratory Compliance Officer Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 1

Background on Laboratory-Developed Tests • LDTs are regulated under CLIA, as non-FDA approved tests, test kits, or test systems. • For non-FDA-approved methods, laboratories must establish and document their own test performance characteristics, as applicable, according to CLIA rules. • Now the FDA has decided to exercise its authority to regulate LDTs, but has not decided how to do it. …. Why? GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 2

Medical Devices and the FDA • The FDA does not regulate clinical laboratories • Since the implementation of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, the FDA has had statutory authority to regulate all medical devices. • Medical Device: “an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent or similar related article. . . intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals” (FFDCA 201(h)) GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 3

Medical Devices and the FDA Definition of In-Vitro Diagnostic Devices (IVDs) • IVDs are a subset of medical devices which are “reagents, instruments, and systems intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, including a determination of the state of health, in order to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease or its sequelae” (21 CFR 809. 3) GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 4

Background on Laboratory-Developed Tests Enforcement Discretion: When FDA does not enforce some or all applicable laws and regulations on certain categories of products (drugs, devices, biologics, etc. ) • Enforcement discretion not unique to LDTs • Enforcement discretion does not change the fact that the law still applies • Many different reasons for this practice (risk, history, timing, resources, etc. ) • Practices like this do occur, but may change (often because of changes in risk profile of the products) GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 5

Background on Laboratory-Developed Tests 1) Commercially Distributed Test Pathway: FDA approval “test kit” manufactured for distribution to multiple labs Patient “Test kits” distributed to patients, hospital, or clinical lab 2) Lab Developed Test (LDT) Pathway: FDA “enforcement discretion” Test designed, manufactured, and used in a single lab LDTs (lab developed tests) enter the market without review Patient GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 6

IVD Classification Risk-Based Classification of IVDs: Intended Use • The classification of an IVD by the FDA is risk-based, and determined based upon the intended use of the device • Intended Use: – General description of the disease or condition that the device will diagnose, treat, prevent cure or mitigate – Defines the patient population – Defines specific type of specimen • A single IVD can have multiple intended uses GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 7

Risk-Based Classification of IVDs • The risk of an IVD is based on the consequences of a false result • 3 Classification levels – – – Class I: common, low risk devices Class II: more complex, moderate risk Class III: most complex, high risk and novel intended uses GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 8

Risk-Based Classification of IVDs: Classification Breakdown GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 9

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Implemented increased oversight of laboratory testing: • Certification process • Accreditation requirements • Periodic inspections • Education and training requirements • Proficiency testing GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 10

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) FDA: Focus of CLIA is on the quality of the lab performing the tests, not on the tests themselves CLIA regulation of labs and FDA regulation of tests are complementary for diagnostic testing GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 11

FDA Registration of establishment Registration/Listing Publicly available listing of marketed tests CMS (CLIA) Registration and certification of Lab Lists of tests maintained by CMS (not currently publicly accessible) Analytical validation Premarket review of analytical data for Class II and Class III tests Sampling after marketing during periodic laboratory inspections Clinical validation Premarket review of clinical Not required claims for Class II and Class III tests; Postmarket surveillance of clinical claims for Class I tests GMPs, QS Regulations Laboratory Quality system Assessed by inspection Required for Class II and Class III tests and all other devices with software Not required. Adverse Event Reporting Yes No Postmarket surveillance Yes No Recalls Yes No Quality System Design Controls Software not addressed by CLIA. GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 12

Potential Risks of Insufficient Oversight As Seen by the FDA Tests without sufficient oversight can lead to incorrect diagnoses. FDA has observed the following in LDTs in recent years: • Faulty data analysis • Exaggerated clinical claims • Fraudulent data • Lack of traceability/change control • Poor clinical study design • Unacceptable clinical performance GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 13

Current Landscape • Secretary’s Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) – Released Recommendations of Genetic Testing Oversight Recommended that FDA address all lab tests using risk based approach (2008) • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) – Published a draft Technology Assessment on Quality, Regulation and Clinical Utility of Laboratory-developed Tests (2010) • Congressional Interest • Diagnostic Test Oversight • Personalized Medicine • DTC testing GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 14

Current Landscape • Move toward Personalized Medicine • Increased use of lab tests in clinical care • Companion diagnostics increasingly developed – different risks • New Business Models • LDT viewed as ‘easier’ route to market • Driving venture capital funding decisions GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 15

What Action Should the FDA Take? • The FDA convened a public meeting on the oversight of LDTs at the University of Maryland, held on July 19 -20, 2010. • Approximately 700 stakeholders, including laboratory professionals, clinicians, and industry representatives were in attendance. • Series of public presentations and panel discussions on patient and clinical considerations concerning LDT oversight, clinical laboratory challenges, direct-to-consumer testing, and education and outreach. GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 16

What Action Should the FDA Take? The FDA’s Expressed Position: • New era of molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine • Broad agreement that diagnostics are the focus of personalized care • Public needs assurances that diagnostics are sound and reliable GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 17

What Action Should the FDA Take? FDA Mission Benefi Getting safe and ts effective devices to market as quickly as possible. . . Risks While ensuring that current devices on the market remain safe and effective. . GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 18

Personal Observations/Comments • CLIA regulations are not well understood by many stakeholders. There is no such thing as a moderate complexity LDT. • LDTs are for single lab use only, and compliance with FDA labeling rules for manufacturers that develop IVDs for sale and general distribution to many labs should not apply. • For LDTs, FDA risk-based classification only addresses half the equation. The FDA must perform a true risk/benefit analysis, as the benefit may outweigh the risk. • Genetics is not a laboratory specialty under CLIA, so there are no specific requirements for genetic testing. Only the specialty of clinical cytogenetics has been defined with rules under CLIA. Clinical cytogenetics should be a subspecialty of genetics under CLIA, and CMS needs to address this problem. • FDA should require disclaimer similar to that for use of ASRs when labs report results of non-FDA approved tests. • There is a disconnect between FDA's concern to protect the public re: use of LDTs and the FDA's categorization of many tests as waived from CLIA requirements. GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 19

FDA Action • The FDA said that it would review comments from the meeting, as well as those submitted to the federal docket by Aug. 15, and develop a draft oversight framework for public comment “with the goal of providing a level of predictability as quickly as possible. ” GDS_0524793_Epner_v 8 20