The FDA's Proposed Rule on Laboratory-Developed Tests: Impacts on Clinical Laboratories and Patient Care
Smith, L.; Carricaburu, L. A.; Genzen, J. R.
Show abstract
In October 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a proposed rule to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as medical devices. While approximately 6,700 public comments were submitted during the open comment period, there is not a reliable mechanism to quantify how clinical laboratorians as a sector perceive the proposed rule. To solicit quantifiable feedback on the FDAs proposed rule, a ten-item questionnaire was developed and submitted to clinical laboratory customers of ARUP Laboratories, a national nonprofit clinical laboratory of the University of Utah Department of Pathology. Of 503 clinical laboratory respondents, only 41 (8.2%) support the FDAs proposed rule. 66.9% of respondents work in laboratories that perform LDTs and were therefore asked additional questions regarding the proposed rule. 83.9% of these respondents believe that the proposed rule will negatively impact their laboratories, while only 3.0% believe that they have the financial resources to pay for FDA user fees. 60.9% of respondents anticipate removing tests from their laboratory menus if the proposed rule is enacted, while an additional 33.2% indicated that they do not yet know. Only 11.2% of respondents believe that they would pursue FDA submissions for all of their existing LDTs if the final rule is enacted. The vast majority of respondents (>80%) were either extremely concerned or very concerned about the impact of the proposed rule on patient access to essential testing, financial and personnel resources to comply, innovation, the FDAs ability to implement the proposed rule, and send-out costs and test prices. Respondents indicated that they would rely heavily on reference laboratory partners for advocacy against the proposed rule, testing options, education, and consultation if the rule was enacted. Thematic analysis of open comments revealed strong opposition to the proposed rule and significant concern regarding negative impacts to patient care across clinical laboratory settings.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The role of veterinary diagnostic laboratories during COVID-19 response in the United States 94%
- Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 93%
- Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Point of Care Devices in the Laboratory and Clinical Setting 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Data-driven hypothesis generation among junior clinical researchers: A comparison of a secondary data analysis with visualization (VIADS) and other tools 89%
- Operationalizing a complex acute clinical trial: Lessons from the BEACH study 87%
- Emotional Distress, Stress, Anxiety and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Career Women in Healthcare Sciences Research 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Self-tests for COVID-19: what is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023) 92%
- Diagnostic testing preferences can help inform future public health response efforts: global insights from an international survey 92%
- Drug Supply Management at First-level Public Health Facilities: Case of Pyay District, Myanmar 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A multicenter study to assess the performance of the point-of-care RT-PCR Cobas SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B nucleic acid test for use on the Cobas Liat system in comparison with centralized assays across healthcare facilities in the United States 92%
- Estimating the false positive rate of highly automated SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing 92%
- Performance of Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 rapid nucleic acid amplification test in nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral media and dry nasal swabs, in a New York City academic institution 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.