Today's Clinical Lab - News, Editorial and Products for the Clinical Laboratory
Illustration of a sticky note pinned to a blue background with the words, December 4, written on it.
Though FDA regulation of LDTs is not a new topic, the release of this proposed rule is a significant step in the LDT saga.
Today's Clinical Lab/iStock, phototechno

FDA Proposed Rule on LDT Regulation: Comments Due Soon

Clinical laboratories should strongly consider submitting comments before the Dec. 4 deadline

Photo portrait of Shannon Bennett, MS, MBA
Shannon Bennett, MS, MBA

Shannon Bennett, MS, MBA, is a seasoned professional with more than two decades of experience in the clinical diagnostics field. Currently serving as the director of regulatory affairs in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic, Bennett brings a wealth of expertise to the intersection of health care and regulatory compliance. He holds a master’s degree in biochemistry and structural biology, complemented by an MBA. Additionally, Bennett is a certified manager of quality and organizational excellence through the American Society for Quality, showcasing a commitment to the highest standards in the field. Throughout his career, Bennett has been a driving force influencing requirements for the design, development, and validation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). He is dedicated to sharing insights, fostering innovation, and contributing to the continual improvement of diagnostic testing.

ViewFull Profile
Learn about ourEditorial Policies.
Published:Nov 21, 2023
|2 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
5:00

The FDA released a proposed rule on laboratory-developed test (LDT) regulation on September 29, 2023, seeking public comment until December 4, 2023. While the proposal is several dozen pages long, the proposed regulatory update can be easily summarized: The FDA considers LDTs to be medical devices and will regulate them in the same way as in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test kits. The FDA has proposed a four-year transition period for this change. The first three years of implementation include adverse event reporting, registration and listing, and quality management system requirements, with test submissions beginning at year 3.5 of the transition period.

Interested parties are encouraged to comment; the FDA recommends commenters support their suggestions or concerns with data and/or public health policy arguments. Though the FDA is required to respond to all comments, the agency is not required to accept or act on all remarks. Comments should ideally be informative and/or constructive; simply indicating approval or opposition to the proposed rule is unlikely to carry much weight.

In addition to general input on regulation of LDTs, the FDA is seeking input on several specific questions:

 1. Should the agency consider grandfathering a subset of LDTs?

This concept would allow a subset of LDTs to remain on the market without needing to comply with certain medical device requirements, e.g., premarket review. It is likely that grandfathered LDTs would still need to comply with some medical device requirements, such as registration and listing, as directed by the FDA. A response to this question should include a description of tests that should be grandfathered and the justification for doing so.

2. Should small laboratories have a longer transition period?

The rationale is presumably that smaller clinical laboratories will have fewer resources to comply with medical device requirements. A response to this question should include a proposed definition of a “small laboratory,” supporting information to justify delayed implementation for such laboratories, and a proposed expanded timeline.

3. Should academic medical centers be excluded from certain medical device requirements?

A response to this question should include a proposed definition of an academic medical centers (AMC) and a description of the medical device requirements that AMCs should be exempt from, e.g., premarket review, quality system requirements, etc.

4. Should the FDA utilize existing premarket review programs such as the New York State Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program as a surrogate for FDA premarket review?

Such an approach would be conceptually similar to the FDA’s existing third-party review program. A response to this question should include the characteristics and activities an eligible third-party reviewer should demonstrate and any limitations that should be placed on such an entity, e.g., limiting their review to low or moderate risk LDTs.

Though FDA regulation of LDTs is not a new topic, the release of this proposed rule is a significant step in the LDT saga. Clinical laboratories should strongly consider submitting comments before December 4.