On July 8, 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance on the subject of next generation sequencing (NGS) activities: (1) “Uses of Standards in FDA Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases” and (2) “Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics.” The first focuses on the FDA’s proposed use of standards to help establish the safety and efficacy of NGS-based tests. The second focuses on the importance of high quality and publicly accessible databases to provide robust scientific evidence for understanding genomic variation, to inform decision-making, and to assess the clinical validity of NGS-based tests. Guidance is not a formal regulation, but rather an agency’s statement about how it will interpret or apply a regulation in the future. Draft guidance is a proposed policy that means the agency is formulating a position, whereas a final guidance is a document that represents what the agency has settled on as its interpretive policy. In theory, guidance is intended to serve as additional instructions for complying with rules and not intended to serve as the rules themselves.
The premise underlying the draft guidance is the controversial and—as yet—legally untested assertion that genomic analyses of all kinds are “medical devices” that Congress has, by statute, authorized the FDA to regulate. If they are, then the FDA would have the power to bring them under its current risk-based classification scheme for medical devices or to create a new scheme for them. If they are not medical devices, then the effort to regulate them might exceed the FDA’s statutory authority and conceivably amount to an unconstitutional regulatory overreach. Both draft guidance documents avoid any mention of the overarching debate, a subject covered extensively on Genomics Law Report, surrounding FDA oversight of all laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays (IVDMIAs). As others have noted, it is impossible to consider these new pieces of draft guidance outside of that context. Nonetheless, even the FDA asserts (via Twitter and elsewhere) that the two new drafts are intended to facilitate the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) and are distinct from the agency’s expressed intention to regulate LDTs. These pieces of draft guidance also give a policy-based reason for pause, as they could be another example of governance by guidance, a highly problematic approach as highlighted recently by John Conley with regard to the HIPAA right to access lab data and results.
Read the rest of this entry »
In her recent post on the FDA’s draft guidance on its proposed oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), Jen Wagner mentioned my interview with Genome Web’s Turna Ray on January 15, 2015. Turna asked me to address some arguments made in a “white paper” written by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe on behalf of their client, the American Clinical Laboratory Association. The main point that Clement and Tribe made was that the FDA lacks legal authority to oversee LDTs, at least in the way that it’s proposing to do so. As I told Turna, I don’t necessarily disagree with their position; in fact, I’m skeptical about the FDA’s authority to do this. Also, like Jen, I’m not persuaded the proposed FDA initiative is likely to work well from a practical perspective. Nonetheless, I agreed to play along in a devil’s advocate exercise, making the counterarguments I’d make if representing the FDA. Here’s a brief summary of my arguments:
Read the rest of this entry »
Once again, attention in Washington, DC has turned to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its proposed oversight of all laboratory developed tests (LDTs). The occasion for this attention was the FDA’s separate releases on October 3, 2014 of its proposed LDT framework and proposed notification and medical device reporting guidance. The former describes the basic structure for how the FDA intends to exercise its authority over LDTs as medical devices (e.g., risk classification and enforcement discretion categories), and the latter describes the process by which laboratories offering LDTs must notify the FDA of all LDTs (i.e., registration) and the adverse event reporting requirements that would apply to LDTs as medical devices (i.e., reporting of deaths, serious injuries, malfunctions, etc.). The agency hosted a public meeting on January 8-9, 2015 to discuss the proposed guidance and is accepting written public comments until February 2, 2015. [No joke: Comments are, in fact, due on Groundhog Day.]
• Comments on the proposed LDT framework (Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0360) can be submitted here.
• Comments on the proposed notification and medical device reporting (Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0357) can be submitted here.
The public meeting featuring speakers and panelists was organized into six topical sessions covering test components and labeling; clinical validity and intended use; categories for continued enforcement discretion; notification and adverse event reporting; classification and prioritization; and quality system regulation. The FDA has promised to post the transcript (and, in the meantime, some live tweets from the meeting will remain available on @DNAlawyer’s feed). Dr. Jeff Shuren started the meeting with a reminder that the FDA’s proposed guidance was based on discussions held five years ago, in 2010. (Prior GLR coverage is here.)
Read the rest of this entry »
On July 31, 2014, the FDA gave Congress notice that in the next 60 days it would be announcing draft guidelines on the regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). This topic has been discussed on the Genomics Law Report frequently for years. [You can access the previous coverage here].
The “Anticipated Details of the Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Clinical Laboratories: Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs)” mark a large expansion of FDA regulatory activity into industry practices that have been–depending on your perspective on the scope of the agency’s regulatory power—enjoying the FDA’s discretionary forbearance from regulation or taking place just outside of FDA’s regulatory reach. Indeed, aside from a few “it has come to our attention” letters in Summer 2010 and the second, more forceful warning letter issued to 23andMe in Fall 2013, the FDA has not taken action against companies providing individuals with direct-to-consumer (DTC) access to their personal genetic/genomic information.
Read the rest of this entry »
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.
For years, and with increasing frequency, health care and information technology companies have touted the potential of mobile medical and health applications and technologies to improve the quality and delivery of health care through the use of technology. While the future of mobile health (frequently referred to as “mHealth”) is undoubtedly filled with promise, the legal and regulatory landscape in which mHealth technologies reside is only now beginning to take shape.
As mHealth developers, funders and even users consider investing in the field, or including in particular mHealth technologies, they should keep in mind the emergent and fluid nature of the mHealth regulatory landscape. Here, we outline the likely key players and discuss several recent and projected initiatives with respect to the oversight of mHealth technologies:
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.
Amit Bhagwandass is a rising third-year student at University of North Carolina School of Law.
New rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have an appreciable impact on the way that hospitals, nursing homes and other inpatient and outpatient health care providers will monitor their patients in the future. The new FCC rules enable the use of Medical Body Area Networks (MBANs). MBANs are low-power wideband networks consisting of multiple body-worn sensors that transmit various patient data to a control device that collects data from the sensors.
Wireless devices operating on the MBAN spectrum can be used to continuously monitor a patient’s health by measuring indicators such as blood glucose levels, blood pressure and electrocardiogram results. Additionally, wireless health devices can include mobile devices and associated applications of increasing relevance to consumer health and personalized medicine, such as mobile-device enabled sensors that monitor vital signs for any number of traits or conditions like blood pressure, glucose levels or even the early signs of an asthma attack.
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.
Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.
Thanks to technological innovation and a corresponding decline in cost, an increasing number of individuals are finding themselves with the task – or at least the opportunity – of accessing and interpreting their own genetic information. Over the past year, several state legislatures have taken notice.
Following on the heels of legislation passed or proposed in California, Vermont and Massachusetts, the Alabama House of Representatives is considering a bill by Representative Henry (pre-filed on January 23, 2012 and scheduled for first read on February 7, 2012) titled the “Genetic Information Privacy Act” (2012 AL H.B. 78). While the bill is relatively brief, its effects as written may reach far beyond those intended.
A New Bar for Informed Consent. First, the bill in its current form would require signature on separate informed consent documents to obtain, retain, or disclose genetic information. As drafted the bill would provide an exception for the insurance industry, permitting a single, integrated informed consent document if the genetic information is being obtained, retained, or disclosed “for the purpose of obtaining insurance” (Page 4, Line 25).