FDA对实验室开发测试(LDT)的试验监管:一家学术医疗中心在猴痘内部测试方面的经验。

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 VIROLOGY Journal of Clinical Virology Pub Date : 2023-10-10 DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105611
JR Caldera, Hannah K. Gray, Omai B. Garner, Shangxin Yang
{"title":"FDA对实验室开发测试(LDT)的试验监管:一家学术医疗中心在猴痘内部测试方面的经验。","authors":"JR Caldera,&nbsp;Hannah K. Gray,&nbsp;Omai B. Garner,&nbsp;Shangxin Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The 2022 mpox outbreak presented a familiar challenge to clinical laboratories. Accordingly, our institution was able to swiftly implement in-house mpox testing to meet the imminent diagnostic needs of the public health emergency. While the FDA authorized laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) for lesion specimens, however, it restricted the testing of rectal swabs despite mounting evidence of its clinical utility. Notably, within the short timeframe when rectal testing was available, we identified a high-risk patient without apparent lesions who tested monleypox-positive only by our in-house rectal swab assay. In order for our institution to continue testing non-lesion samples, The FDA required a separate Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application that demanded additional resource-costly validation studies despite utilizing the same testing platform as lesion samples. Here, we provide a brief review of the history, current status, and legal scope surrounding LDT validations, with an in-depth comparison of the technical requirements by CLIA, CAP and the FDA. Importantly, we provide our experience with the mpox EUA submission process to serve as context for the challenges that may be imposed by the new FDA regulations. We hope that our experience will offer a valuable perspective that promotes constructive discourse towards addressing the imperative to offer high-quality laboratory diagnostics without compromising on the need of the medical laboratory community to provide effective patient care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 105611"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FDA trial regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs): An academic medical center's experience with Mpox in-house testing\",\"authors\":\"JR Caldera,&nbsp;Hannah K. Gray,&nbsp;Omai B. Garner,&nbsp;Shangxin Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105611\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The 2022 mpox outbreak presented a familiar challenge to clinical laboratories. Accordingly, our institution was able to swiftly implement in-house mpox testing to meet the imminent diagnostic needs of the public health emergency. While the FDA authorized laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) for lesion specimens, however, it restricted the testing of rectal swabs despite mounting evidence of its clinical utility. Notably, within the short timeframe when rectal testing was available, we identified a high-risk patient without apparent lesions who tested monleypox-positive only by our in-house rectal swab assay. In order for our institution to continue testing non-lesion samples, The FDA required a separate Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application that demanded additional resource-costly validation studies despite utilizing the same testing platform as lesion samples. Here, we provide a brief review of the history, current status, and legal scope surrounding LDT validations, with an in-depth comparison of the technical requirements by CLIA, CAP and the FDA. Importantly, we provide our experience with the mpox EUA submission process to serve as context for the challenges that may be imposed by the new FDA regulations. We hope that our experience will offer a valuable perspective that promotes constructive discourse towards addressing the imperative to offer high-quality laboratory diagnostics without compromising on the need of the medical laboratory community to provide effective patient care.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"volume\":\"169 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105611\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Virology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653223002342\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VIROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653223002342","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2022年猴痘疫情给临床实验室带来了熟悉的挑战。因此,我们的机构能够迅速实施内部猴痘检测,以满足公共卫生紧急情况下迫在眉睫的诊断需求。然而,尽管美国食品药品监督管理局授权对病变标本进行实验室开发的检测(LDT),但它限制了直肠拭子的检测,尽管越来越多的证据表明其临床实用性。值得注意的是,在直肠检测可用的短时间内,我们发现了一名没有明显病变的高危患者,该患者仅通过我们内部的直肠拭子检测检测出猴痘阳性。为了让我们的机构继续测试非病变样本,美国食品药品监督管理局要求单独的紧急使用授权(EUA)申请,尽管使用了与病变样本相同的测试平台,但该申请需要额外的资源成本高昂的验证研究。在这里,我们简要回顾了LDT验证的历史、现状和法律范围,并对CLIA、CAP和FDA的技术要求进行了深入比较。重要的是,我们提供了我们在猴痘EUA提交过程中的经验,作为FDA新法规可能带来的挑战的背景。我们希望,我们的经验将提供一个有价值的视角,促进建设性的讨论,以解决提供高质量实验室诊断的必要性,而不影响医学实验室社区提供有效患者护理的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
FDA trial regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs): An academic medical center's experience with Mpox in-house testing

The 2022 mpox outbreak presented a familiar challenge to clinical laboratories. Accordingly, our institution was able to swiftly implement in-house mpox testing to meet the imminent diagnostic needs of the public health emergency. While the FDA authorized laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) for lesion specimens, however, it restricted the testing of rectal swabs despite mounting evidence of its clinical utility. Notably, within the short timeframe when rectal testing was available, we identified a high-risk patient without apparent lesions who tested monleypox-positive only by our in-house rectal swab assay. In order for our institution to continue testing non-lesion samples, The FDA required a separate Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application that demanded additional resource-costly validation studies despite utilizing the same testing platform as lesion samples. Here, we provide a brief review of the history, current status, and legal scope surrounding LDT validations, with an in-depth comparison of the technical requirements by CLIA, CAP and the FDA. Importantly, we provide our experience with the mpox EUA submission process to serve as context for the challenges that may be imposed by the new FDA regulations. We hope that our experience will offer a valuable perspective that promotes constructive discourse towards addressing the imperative to offer high-quality laboratory diagnostics without compromising on the need of the medical laboratory community to provide effective patient care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Virology
Journal of Clinical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
1.10%
发文量
149
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice. The journal publishes on topics that include: • new diagnostic technologies • nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing • targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing • emerging pandemic viral threats • respiratory viruses • transplant viruses • chronic viral infections • cancer-associated viruses • gastrointestinal viruses • central nervous system viruses • one health (excludes animal health)
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Nucleic acid amplification testing using dried blood spots to confirm the diagnosis of HIV-1 in adults Quantification of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) viral load in plasma: Comparison of three commercial assays Coinfections and iterative detection of respiratory viruses among 17,689 patients between March 2021 and December 2022 in Southern France Performance evaluation of the Abbott Alinity Hepatitis C antigen next assay in a US urban emergency department population
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1