Agenda. - Introduction Howard Birndorf. - ASR Issues and the Draft ASR FAQ Guidance Patrick Balthrop

Similar documents
Re: Docket No. 2006D-0347, Federal Register: July 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Pages )

Draft Guidance for Industry, Clinical Laboratories, and FDA Staff. In Vitro Diagnostic Multivariate Index Assays

Disclosures. Laboratory Stakeholders. IVD vs. LDT. FDA Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests 10/2/2015. FDA Regulation of LDTs

Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests

Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0215 Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff on In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices

Perspective: Convergence of CLIA and FDA Requirements A Rational Shift in the Regulatory Paradigm

Molecular Diagnosis Challenges & Solutions. Using Molecular Kits or Laboratory Developed Tests (Home Brew), Emphasis on Validation

FDA PLANS TO REGULATE TESTS AS DEVICES. August 2010 SPECIAL REPRINT. By Ellen Flannery and Scott Danzis

Current Topics in NYS Clinical Laboratory Oversight

Regulatory Overview of Proposed LDT Framework. FDA Concerns. Background. FDA Proposed Regulatory Approach. By Ben Berg, Meaghan Bailey, RAC

FDA s Proposed Regulatory Changes to Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs) By Roz Sweeney, Ph.D., Nerac Analyst

Molecular Diagnostics Regulation Shifting from a Biomarker-Based Approach to an Algorithm-Based Approach

A Risk-based Approach for In Vitro Companion Diagnostics Device FDA Approval Process Associated with Therapies that have Breakthrough Designation

FDA Regulatory Hurdles: What is the Status Quo?

A New Era of Clinical Diagnostics: How the Business Model is Changing.

September 8, General Comments:

OMBU. Ombu Enterprises, LLC Ombu The Operational Excellence Company Ph: Fax: ENTERPRISES, LLC

Regulatory & Reimbursement Policy Trends Affecting Market Access for Diagnostic Devices Emphasis on Validity and Quality

FDA Regulation of Diagnostic Tests An Evolving World

Copyright. Jeremiah J. Kelly (2015). All rights reserved. Further dissemination without express written consent strictly prohibited.

RE: Draft Local Coverage Determination Molecular Diagnostic Tests (MDT) (DL33599)

FDA Regulation of In Vitro Diagnostics: Current Perspectives and Initiatives

Statements on the Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests

Developing a Companion Diagnostics in parallel to a medicinal product Legal and Regulatory requirements in Europe and in the US

What is an LDT? The Do s s And Don ts of Validating Laboratory Developed Tests

The In Vitro Diagnostic CRO

So You Want to Develop a Test? Navigating the Regulatory Waters of Laboratory Developed Testing

LDT Review: The New York Experience

FDA's Initiative to Regulate Lab- Developed Tests (LDT) will Harm Patients and Academic Pathology

March 19, Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852

August 2017 Changes. Flow Cytometry Checklist. CAP Accreditation Program

Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Next Generation

Confronting MedTech Start-Ups Three Biggest Challenges: Initiating Regulatory & Quality

Re: Comments on FDA s technical assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Innovation Act

POET REPORT Perspectives on Emerging Technology

American Society of Cytopathology Core Curriculum in Molecular Biology

FDA Regulation of Testing

FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

Molecular Diagnostics: The Shift to Complexity. Molecular Diagnostics Regulation: Where do we go from here? David W Feigal, Jr.

Recent Initiatives in Precision Medicine PMC Policy Committee Meeting February 20, Laura Koontz, Ph.D. Personalized Medicine Staff CDRH/OIR

Validation of Laboratory-Developed Molecular Assays for Infectious Diseases

FDA s Evolving Policy on Personalized Medicine Tests

QC and Reference Material for Genetic Testing US Regulatory Aspects

U.S. FDA CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH UPDATE

Policy Issues in the Clinical Development and Use of Biomarkers for Molecularly Targeted Therapies: Device Issues

Impact of the IVD Regulations. Barbara Fallowfield Managing Director

Molecular Diagnostics

COVERAGE ELIGIBILITY OF SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH A CLINICAL TRIAL

Perspective: New European IVD Regulations New Concepts for Market Authorizations and Product Launch Schedules

Personalised Medicine Regulatory Issues

CHARTING THE COURSE FOR PRECISION MEDICINE

CDRH Device Approval

Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Replacement Reagent and Instrument Family Policy

Advancing utility and adoption of clinical genomic diagnostics

Bipartisan Policy Center, Top Medical Innovation Priorities

Medical Devices; Exemption From Premarket Notification; Class II Devices; Autosomal

September 12, Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852

Re: Docket No. FDA-2017-D ; Draft Guidance on Recommendations for Dual 510(k) and CLIA Waiver by Application Studies

MCW Office of Research Standard Operating Procedure

Introduction to the FDA. Historical Context. Changes over Time FDA - BE-200 9/23/2004. Copyright C. S. Tritt, Ph.D. 1

Bioresearch Monitoring Inspections in Vitro Diagnostics Devices

First Annual Biomarker Symposium Quest Diagnostics Clinical Trials

Combination Products Coalition ( CPC ); Points to Consider in Drafting FDA s Co-development Guidance and Other Companion Diagnostic Guidances

The Intersection of Genomics Research and the IDE Regulation

Current Trends at FDA: Implications for Data Requirements

Evidence Generation for Genomic Diagnostic Test Development: A Workshop November 17, 2010 The Keck Center of the National Academies

AHLA. XX. Clinical Labs. Peter M. Kazon Alston & Bird LLP Washington, DC

Overview of the FDA Approval Process for TB Diagnostics

February 23, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 428 Senate Dirksen Office Building Washington, DC 20510

was published. February 21, 2017

DRAFT GUIDANCE. This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only. Document issued on: July 14, 2011

Food Irradiation: FDA s Perspective Teresa Croce, Ph.D.

How to Build a Molecular Testing Laboratory: Key Strategic & Operational Considerations. The complete guide to developing or expanding your lab

Implementing an e-validation Solution at Myriad Genetics

Structure and Mandate of FDA

Topics. HCCA Research Compliance Confereence. May 31-June 3, Why are changes in Personalized Medicine Important to Me?

The Journey Towards Standardization in Validation of Fluorescent Cell-Based Assays

January 17, Dear Ms. Jensen,

Data Transparency and Quality Metrics

General Comments. May 30, Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852

Presentation to the Committee on Accelerating Rare Disease Research and Orphan Product Development

Role of the WHO IVD Prequalification Programme in Light of National Regulatory Authority Approval

[[Page 63034]] ======================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Advertising and Marketing Genetic Tests New Pathways or Old Roads?

Infectious Disease Next Generation Sequencing Based Diagnostic Devices: Microbial

February 15, Re: Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6159: Expedited Programs for Regenerative Medicine Therapies for Serious Conditions

Testimony of Christopher Newton-Cheh, MD, MPH Volunteer for the American Heart Association

American Clinical Laboratory Association 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 725 West Washington, DC

FDA, Center for Devices & Radiological Health: Microbiology Devices Panel Meeting. June 29 th, 2011 Summary: Carol D. Hamilton MD

US FDA: CMC Issues for INDs

Expanded Access and the Individual Patient IND

Association for Molecular Pathology Promoting Clinical Practice, Basic Research, and Education in Molecular Pathology

Health Industry Alert

FDA Perspectives on Novel Kidney Biomarker Tests

Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Automated

Frequently Asked Questions

FDA s Final Rule on Medical Device Data Systems Signals Active Regulation of Data Communication Technologies

IDSA is pleased to offer the following comments on specific priority areas identified by FDA:

Reducing Unnecessary Medical Imaging Exposure

Transcription:

- Introduction Howard Birndorf Agenda - ASR Issues and the Draft ASR FAQ Guidance Patrick Balthrop - IVDMIA Issues and the Draft IVDMIA Guidance Randy Scott - Q&A and Discussion All

Who Are We? - Emerging and innovative diagnostic companies, stakeholders, and shareholders who wish to apply the fruits of 21 st century medicine, including the Human Genome Project, to the creation of new molecular tests that greatly improve personal health while substantially reducing healthcare costs. Diagnostic innovators Emerging companies Patient groups Medical professionals Venture capital firms

Steering Committee Howard Birndorf Brook Byers Randy Scott Patrick Balthrop Vijay Aggarwal Sharon Terry

Founding Members * * * * * * * = steering committee

Basic Principles - The coalition believes: That innovation and quality patient care are the keys to 21 st century medicine That timely access to new information by physicians and patients is critical to improving the quality of care and providing more personalized medicine That we must balance regulation and innovation if we are to improve the quality and economics of our healthcare system

Impact of Diagnostics Typical Current Intervention Disease Burden Baseline Risk Earliest Molecular Detection Earliest Clinical Detection Cost / Reversibility Time Sources: M. Aspinall, Genzyme; Model by Dr. Ralph Snyderman, Duke University

Working with Congress and FDA - Support key elements of 21 st century medicine, including innovation and personalized medicine - Engage in positive and constructive dialogue with FDA and with Congress - Help determine the most appropriate pathway for regulation of IVDMIAs and ASRs Provide FDA with feedback on the current draft guidances and to encourage formal notice and comment rulemaking Encourage FDA to provide a smooth transition in the marketplace that facilitates patient access to clinical tests Propose alternative regulatory pathways that reflect the nature and role of IVDMIAs and ASRs in laboratory medicine - Educate key stakeholders about the importance of innovative new diagnostics to quality patient care and reducing healthcare costs

ASRs

ASR Guidance Issues and Alternatives 1) Definition 2) Concerns 3) Transition Period 4) Creation of a New Category 5) Clearance or Approval Based on Claims

1) ASR Definition - Under 21 CFR 864.4020, ASRs are defined as antibodies, both polyclonal and monoclonal, specific receptor proteins, ligands, nucleic acid sequences, and similar reagents which, through specific binding or chemical reaction with substances in a specimen, are intended for use in a diagnostic application for identification and quantification of an individual chemical substance or ligand in biological specimens - The guidance introduces the terms moiety and endpoint and requires that an ASR consist of only a single moiety and detect a single endpoint

2) Concerns - GMP-compliant building blocks for tests may no longer be offered by manufacturers to laboratories Many ASRs, especially molecular diagnostics, include multiple moieties (e.g., primers and probes in a single vial) that are used to develop and validate hundreds of types of diagnostic tests Placing each primer and probe in a separate vial introduces complexity and increased risk of analytical error - Laboratories may revert to non-gmp Research Use Only and Investigational Use Only materials to develop diagnostic tests - Negative impact on innovation, especially for diseases with lower incidence, and on development of molecular diagnostics tests

3) Transition Period Current Status - No transition for many ASR products that could no longer be offered Alternative - Incorporate a grace period into any final guidance or regulation, to minimize disruption in the availability of tests - Companies would be given two years to submit premarket notifications for ASRs deemed to require a 510(k) - Companies would be given four years to submit a PMA for ASRs deemed to require premarket approval

4) Creation of a New Category Current Status - Requiring premarket clearance or approval may impair laboratories access to high quality multiple moieties or building block products Alternative - Promulgate a new regulation placing such products in Class II - Exempt from 510(k) premarket notification (unless they fall under 21 C.F.R. 864.4020(b)(2), (3)) - FDA could establish appropriate special controls and the building blocks could be subject to design controls - A similar approach could be used for ASRs which reference other laboratory equipment or require extensive processing - Building blocks would remain available during this new classification

5) Clearance or Approval Based on Claims Current Status - FDA requires clinical data for clearance or approval of building blocks that exceed their intended use - As building blocks, ASRs are not intended to diagnose a disease or health condition and no diagnostic claims are made Alternative - FDA should allow 510(k)s or PMAs for building blocks based on their claims of analytical performance, e.g., demonstrating that the mutation that is the subject of the claim is detected - QSRs, including design controls, would apply

IVDMIAs

IVDMIA Guidance Issues and Alternatives 1) Definition 2) Concerns 3) Transition Period 4) FDA Premarket Requirements 5) Clinical Laboratory Oversight 6) Test Improvements

1) IVDMIA Definition Current Status The draft guidance states: - Use clinical data to empirically identify variables and to derive weights or coefficients employed in an algorithm - Employ the algorithm to integrate these variables in order to calculate a patient-specific result [that] cannot be independently derived and confirmed by another laboratory - Report this result, which cannot be interpreted by the well-trained health care practitioner without information from the test developer regarding its clinical performance and effectiveness - The current definition creates uncertainty as to which tests are subject to regulation due to ambiguity around key terms

1) IVDMIA Definition Alternative - The final definition should: Clearly discriminate between an IVDMIA subject to FDA regulation and all other LDTs not subject to FDA regulation Clarify what components constitute the medical device and what elements are the clinical laboratory service that uses the device

2) Concerns - Basing regulation on the technology approach rather than on health risks creates a disincentive against developing innovative new technology - Older low technology tests become advantaged in the marketplace - Tests for rare or underserved patient populations may not be developed - Patients and physicians may experience a delay in access to state of the art tests in rapidly advancing fields, such as genetics, oncology, and infectious disease - State of the art improvements in tests may also be delayed or halted

3) Transition Period Current Draft - No transition to bring IVDMIAs from the current CLIA regulatory path to a new CLIA+FDA regulatory path Alternative - Incorporate a transition period of two to four years into any final guidance or regulation, to minimize disruption in the availability of tests - Timeframe and 510(k)/PMA would be dependent upon product risk (see 4) - Transition period for GMP compliance

4) FDA Premarket Requirements Current Draft - 510(k) for prognosis claims and PMA for predictive claims Alternative - FDA registration and low volume exemption FDA registration and listing of all IVDMIAs validated by CLIA certified labs until a testing volume threshold based on tests performed is met. Tests must be labeled to reflect absence of FDA clearance/approval If a test with only analytical performance claims is an IVDMIA, it should be Class I, 510(k)-exempt.

4) FDA Premarket Requirements Alternative - 510(k) transition period of two years for submission from date when an IVDMIA exceeds a volume threshold For prognostic tests For decision aids (neither fully prognostic or predictive) that are advisory and/or do not give a binary therapy recommendation For predictive tests that have multiple peer-reviewed publications For other tests to be determined - PMA transition period of four years for submission from date when exceed a volume threshold for high risk products where the predictive claim directly recommends use or not of a particular therapy - Establish a mechanism to obtain FDA determination at early stage as to applicable regulatory pathway, and guidelines on premarketing requirements

5) Clinical Laboratory Oversight Current Draft - FDA regulates the entire test system including test development, labeling, manufacture and clinical laboratory performance Alternative - Establish clear delineation of responsibility and authority to avoid overlapping regulations and inspections and facilitate compliance - FDA regulates assay design and manufacturing steps - Lab test development and validation of claims consistent with laboratory s intended use - Modified QSR requirements reflecting internal use by single lab only - Complaint handling/investigation and manufacturer MDR regulations - Clarification of labeling and promotion limitations - CLIA regulates laboratory service components - Lab inspections, performance and proficiency testing - Test requisition and reporting - Specimen handling

6) Test Improvements Current Draft - How would process or product improvements be dealt with? Alternative - FDA regulates laboratory manufacturing changes or new intended uses - Well-established changes made based on internal testing and MTF - Incorporate into 510(k)/PMA process criteria to enable changes without new marketing applications, e.g., pre-defined protocols - Mechanisms for abbreviated clearance when submissions are needed for changes - Fast track approval process - CLIA regulates process improvements under current regulations - Process automation changes - QA/QC process changes - Updates to test requisition forms and test reports as required by CLIA based upon new information needed to interpret test results

Next Steps 1. Continue working cooperatively and productively with FDA 2. Propose next meeting 3. Members of the Coalition will be filing comments with FDA

P. O. Box 15519 Arlington, VA 22215-0519 1.800.226.9494 www.twentyfirstcenturymedicine.org