FDA LDT Regulation
On June 16, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its intention to dramatically expand its regulatory oversight of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). For years, the FDA had adopted a policy of “enforcement discretion” in declining to closely regulate LDTs. However, an expanding and changing LDT marketplace, along with heightened government and media scrutiny of certain LDTs, including high-complexity tests and tests marketed directly to consumers (DTC), has caused the FDA to reconsider its policy of enforcement discretion. This page aggregates all of the Genomics Law Report’s coverage of the FDA’s ongoing attempt to develop a comprehensive system of oversight for LDTs
Last week, the FDA published on its website a warning letter to AMARC Enterprises, Inc., a marketer of a dietary supplement known as Poly-MVA. (Here is the company’s description of the supplement.) While the letter is not addressed to a high-profile company or product, given that the FDA’s action will likely have broader significance beyond just AMARC and its Poly-MVA supplement, all currently or potentially FDA-regulated entities, including consumer genomics companies, should take note.
The AMARC letter, issued by a regional compliance office and dating to this past December, is unremarkable in most respects. The majority of the letter focuses on website copy, printed information packets, customer testimonials and other materials that appear, at least to the FDA, to represent claims made by AMARC that the Poly-MVA supplement is “intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease,” thus making it a drug subject to FDA regulatory approval.
This morning, Gene By Gene, Ltd. – better known as the parent company of the popular genetic genealogy provider Family Tree DNA – formally announced a corporate reorganization that includes the debut of a new division, DNA DTC. (Apparently the news was also announced earlier this month at the Family Tree DNA Conference, although the company waited until today to launch press releases.)
The announcement from Gene By Gene is newsworthy for several reasons, including:
1. The Return of True DTC Whole Genome and Whole Exome Sequencing. According to DNA DTC, the company offers a range of products “utilizing next generation sequencing including the entire exome (at 80x coverage) and the whole genome.” The company’s website, while fairly spartan, appears to bear this out. Whole exomes ($695 at 80x coverage) and genomes ($5,495 at 30x coverage) are both listed as available products.
Now, Gene By Gene is not, as its Wikipedia page claims (as of this writing), “the first commercial company to offer whole genome sequencing tests.” Knome earned that honor more than four years ago, when it started selling whole genome sequences for $350,000; an astounding price, either low (given the cost of the first human genome was $3 billion) or high (given that, well, it was $350,000) depending on your perspective. Gene By Gene probably does represent, however, the only commercial company currently offering a whole genome sequence in a truly direct-to-consumer (DTC) manner.
Last week, personal genetics company 23andMe announced that it had formally delivered the first round of documentation to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in an attempt to receive 510(k) clearance for its consumer product.
23andMe declared itself “first in the [ direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing] industry to announce it is working towards FDA clearance.” That first followed another first for the company earlier in the summer: 23andMe’s first patent, which covers a method of predicting susceptibility to Parkinson’s Disease.
I sat down last week with The Burrill Report to discuss 23andMe’s recent activities and their implications for the future of DTC genetic testing and personalized medicine. You can listen to the complete podcast here.
Updating the DTC Debate: Trial by Press Release, More FDA Letters, the Problem of Pleiotropy and New RUO Guidance
Later today I will join several colleagues here in Chicago, IL at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting for a panel discussion on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing for Cancer: What Physicians Need to Know (pdf). (Daniel MacArthur and Misha Angrist will not be on the panel, although each joined us in authoring the pre-conference paper.)
This will, I believe, mark direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing’s formal debut at ASCO. It should also serve as another reminder that, despite its relatively small numbers (both in terms of dollars and customers), DTC genetic testing continues to exert an outsized influence when it comes to conversations about the future of genomic medicine. This is particularly true when the discussion turns to appropriate policy and regulatory oversight.
In advance of ASCO, here are several items of interest from the past few weeks in DTC genetic testing.
The FDA’s public meeting on the future of clinical direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (which we have covered here, here and here) is continuing to draw significant attention from the media and other commentators. Most of the coverage, especially over the past 7-10 days, has added little that is new in the way of either reporting or analysis. One exception, however, comes from Robert VerBruggen of National Review in his column on “The FDA’s Genetic Paternalism.”
What’s new and interesting here is not the substance of VerBruggen’s analysis. Whether or not you agree with Verbruggen’s particular formulation, the “paternalism” critique of proposed FDA regulation of DTC genetic testing is not new. What caught our eye is a comment from deCODE genetics’ CEO Kári Stefánsson. When questioned by VerBruggen about his company’s marketing of its DTC genetic test offering, deCODEme (see screenshot) – which includes statements such as “your genes are a road-map to better health” – here is how Stefánsson responded:
“I think that is both cheesy and somewhat incorrect. I don’t know who came up with that, but whoever it is, is going to be duly punished,” [Stefánsson] said. “I think it’s safe to say we’ll probably be removing that statement and putting up something that at least sounds better.”
After its well-publicized 2009 bankruptcy, deCODE emerged in 2010 as a privately-held company and so it is unlikely the public will know whether Stefánsson follows through with his promise to “duly punish” the source of the “road-map” statement. On the other hand, whether and how deCODE follows through with Stefánsson’s not-quite-a-promise to change deCODEme’s marketing and claims is something that will happen in full view of the public.
Earlier this week, I attended a public two-day meeting of the FDA’s Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel (“MCGP”) in Gaithersburg, MD. The meeting was not particularly well attended (approximately 100 people were in the room) but the topic of the panel’s deliberations – how to appropriately regulate direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests – has sparked intense and ongoing public debate.
Numerous private and public conversations following the meeting indicate that there is considerable confusion about what actually happened at the meeting, including what the MCGP “recommended” to the FDA and what the FDA is likely to do with those recommendations. With that in mind, I followed up today with Dr. Alberto Gutierrez and Dr. Elizabeth Mansfield of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) to seek clarification.
Day one of the FDA’s two-day public meeting on the future of clinical DTC genetic testing is in the books. Those unable to attend in person were, unfortunately, forced to resort to Twitter coverage of the proceedings as the government declined to provide a live webcast. (I’m told there will not be a recorded webcast either. Perhaps the FDA is engaging in preventative cost-cutting.)
The first day was divided into three roughly equal parts: background presentations from the FDA and invited speakers, a second set of “public presentations” by companies and individuals who requested time to present their views and, finally, public deliberations by the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel (“MCGP”). Tomorrow will feature more public presentations, several more sessions of MCGP deliberations and, at the end of the meeting, recommendations from the MCGP to the FDA on the questions presented (pdf) by the FDA.
A Familiar Feeling to Day One. The first two sessions, which featured presentations to the MCGP, followed a fairly familiar script. Opponents of clinical DTC genetic testing worried that incorrect or misinterpreted tests could produce harmful outcomes, and questioned whether there was anything of value to be gained from the tests in the first place. Proponents argued that the DTC model empowered patients to explore their genetic selves without any ill effects. For those who attended or followed last summer’s two-day public meeting to discuss the FDA’s proposal to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs), much of the conversation echoed what was said on day two of that meeting during the direct-to-consumer (DTC) session.
In a few hours, the FDA will kick off a two-day public meeting to consider the future of clinical direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests. Few corners of the personal genomics landscape have generated as much attention from regulators, consumers and, especially, the media as DTC genetic testing. Thus, when the meeting was first announced last month, we applauded the FDA’s attempt to examine DTC’s unique set of issues separate from other larger and ongoing regulatory conversations, including whether and how to regulate the far more numerous category of laboratory developed tests (LDTs).
So just what should we expect from the next two-days? 2010 saw a flurry of DTC-related regulatory and legislative activity but, ultimately, little in the way of new oversight or concrete guidance. Both regulators (including the FDA) and industry appear to have responded in 2011 with a more measured approach, and this week’s meeting is an opportunity to thoroughly examine the state of DTC genetic testing and develop a clear, sensible strategy for future oversight of the industry.
Over at Genetic Future, Daniel MacArthur has already weighed in, adopting a tone of cautious optimism in advance of the DTC meeting. Meanwhile, with just a few hours left until the meeting kicks off, here are three key points I’ll be emphasizing in my own talk tomorrow morning (slides):
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests are back on the FDA’s public radar screen. A month from today, the agency’s Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee will meet to “discuss and make recommendations on scientific issues concerning [DTC] genetic tests that make medical claims.” Here is the Federal Register notice (pdf).
The two-day meeting, which is open to the public, will investigate the following topics:
- The risks and benefits of making clinical genetic tests available for “direct access by a consumer without the involvement of a clinician (i.e., without a prescription).”
- The different types of DTC or direct access tests (e.g., carrier screening, risk prediction in healthy persons, pharmacogenetics, etc.) that might “support differences in the regulatory approach.”
- The “level and type of scientific evidence appropriate for supporting [DTC] claims, including whether it should be different than” what is required for similar clinical genetic tests (presumably, non-DTC in vitro tests, including laboratory developed tests, or LDTs).
A complete agenda and list of speakers has yet to be published, but the fact that the FDA is singling out DTC genetic tests for specific attention is sure to be a welcome sign to many.
[Editor's Note: This post originally appeared as a guest column at Xconomy.]
Last week, New York State assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow introduced the descriptively named “act to amend the insurance law, in relation to requiring coverage for genetic testing in accident and health insurance polices.”
While not accompanied by a press release, or widely covered by media outlets, the bill merits close attention. While the substance of the bill is striking, its greater import lies in what it reveals about the United States’ current framework for personalized medicine regulation and in what the bill portends for the future of personalized medicine innovation and investment in this country.