Monday, September 23, 2024

CMS "TCET" Webinar Today: Auto Article, Auto Transcript

Today, September 23, 2024, CMS held a one hour webinar, half Q&A, about its Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies.   Here we provide a link to an Auto Transcript and an AI Article about the event.  

##

UPDATE: CMS releases full transcript, and, a link to the Zoom call  video.  The deck was interesting (a few slides were novelties)  but they don't seem to have released it separately, only as screen shots within the Zoom video.

https://www.cms.gov/files/document/transcripttransitionalcoverageemergtechedsession09232024.pdf 

##

TCET is pathway for getting an NCD for FDA breakthrough devices, which petition to enter the TCET-CED program about a year before their expected FDA approval.   As emerged in the Q&A, CMS thinks entry of IVD diagnostics into TCET will be uncommon, but it's not impossible.  CMS said they will soon hold a webinar about submitting request letters.

Auto-transcripts aren't as good as human transcripts, but, here is an instant one:

CMS said they will, eventually, post an official transcript.

A screen-grab video is here:  https://youtu.be/bDjlu75EeNE

##

AI CORNER
Below is an auto-article, based on the transcript, and generated by Chat GPT o1.

##


CMS Unveils Transitional Coverage Pathway to Expedite 
Medicare Access to Breakthrough Technologies

In a move to streamline Medicare coverage for innovative medical devices, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hosted a  webinar on the new "Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies" (TCET) pathway. The hour-long session, held earlier this afternoon, detailed how the TCET aims to bridge the gap between FDA market authorization and Medicare coverage, ensuring beneficiaries have timely access to breakthrough medical devices.

[In general, the presentation hewed closely to explaining what was already published in the Final Rule - BQ.]

A Collaborative Effort for Faster Access

Dr. Dora Hughes, CMS Chief Medical Officer and Director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ), opened the webinar by emphasizing the agency's commitment to fostering innovation while safeguarding beneficiary health. "People with Medicare deserve faster and more consistent access to emerging technologies that will improve health outcomes," Dr. Hughes stated. She highlighted that the TCET pathway is voluntary and specifically targets certain FDA-designated breakthrough devices.

Under the TCET, CMS plans to coordinate closely with the FDA and device manufacturers during the premarket review process. This collaboration aims to expedite National Coverage Determinations (NCDs), with a goal of finalizing coverage within six months after FDA market authorization. "The new pathway provides manufacturers with opportunities for increased premarket engagement with CMS and a new, unprecedented level of flexibility to address any evidence gaps for coverage," Dr. Hughes added.

Navigating the TCET Pathway

Dr. Steven Farmer, Chief Strategy Officer at CCSQ's Coverage and Analysis Group, provided an in-depth presentation on the mechanics of the TCET pathway. He underscored the challenges that emerging technologies often face in obtaining prompt Medicare coverage, citing issues like misalignment with existing benefit categories and insufficient evidence applicable to Medicare beneficiaries.

"CMS and FDA have different mandates and operate under different legal authorities," Dr. Farmer explained. While the FDA assesses safety and effectiveness, CMS determines whether an item or service is "reasonable and necessary" for the Medicare population. This distinction necessitates a tailored approach to coverage decisions for breakthrough devices.

The TCET pathway is structured in several stages:

  1. Pre-Market Stage: Manufacturers are encouraged to engage with CMS up to 24 months before anticipated FDA market authorization. Early submission of a non-binding Letter of Intent can improve CMS's ability to plan resources and coordinate reviews.

  2. Near-Market Stage: CMS conducts an evidence preview and works with manufacturers to identify the best available coverage options. Enhanced coordination with FDA and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is a key feature of this stage.

  3. Early Post-Market Stage: If evidence gaps exist, manufacturers can address them through "fit-for-purpose" studies, which may include real-world data. CMS aims to provide transitional coverage while these studies are conducted.

  4. Late Post-Market Stage: CMS assesses the new evidence and may reconsider NCDs, potentially lifting any coverage with evidence development (CED) requirements.

Addressing Stakeholder Concerns

During the Q&A session, CMS officials tackled several pressing questions from stakeholders/

[Answers usually hewed closely to verbiage in the TCET final rule or other prior CMS policies - BQ].

  • Eligibility and Timing: Devices already in the market or those close to FDA market authorization may not be ideal candidates for TCET. CMS emphasized the importance of early engagement to fully leverage the pathway's benefits.

  • Diagnostic Lab Tests: While generally excluded from TCET due to their specific coverage policies available at local contractors, CMS acknowledged that NCDs might be appropriate in certain cases. Manufacturers are encouraged to discuss options with CMS.

  • Prioritization Criteria: CMS plans to prioritize devices based on impact on the Medicare program and beneficiaries, considering both the magnitude of benefit and the number of patients affected. [This is based on existing policy published in 2013.] Health equity impact will also be a factor.

  • Coding and Payment: TCET aims to better align coding and payment processes by initiating reviews well before FDA market authorization. Manufacturers are urged to proactively pursue codes to facilitate this alignment.

  • Medicare Advantage Plans must cover TCET NCD's, just like other NCDs.

Implications for the Healthcare Landscape

The TCET pathway represents a significant shift in how CMS approaches coverage for emerging technologies. By fostering early collaboration and providing clear guidance, CMS seeks to reduce uncertainty for manufacturers and accelerate beneficiary access to cutting-edge medical devices.

According to the CMS speakers, manufacturers stand to benefit from a more predictable and transparent coverage process, while clinicians and patients could see faster availability of innovative treatments. However, the pathway also places an emphasis on rigorous evidence applicable to the Medicare population, ensuring that new technologies deliver meaningful health outcomes.

As the TCET pathway rolls out, CMS plans to provide additional guidance and hold workshops to assist manufacturers in navigating the nomination process. With the first quarterly review cycle's nomination deadline set for October 31, 2024, stakeholders are encouraged to engage early to take full advantage of this new opportunity.

Conclusion

CMS's introduction of the TCET pathway marks the agency's effort to bridge the gap between innovation and patient access within the Medicare program. By addressing longstanding challenges and incorporating stakeholder feedback, CMS is hopes that TCET enhance the adoption of high-value medical technologies.

On Demand: Decibio Webinar on "Oncologists and the Digital Pathology Revolution"

Header: An informative Decibio webinar on "Oncologists and Digital Pathology" can be viewed on-demand.

###

Since this is an article about digital pathology webinar, I thought it would be fun to provide an AI-generatedarticle about it.   

However, I also made clear to Chat GPT 4 that this blog is meant to guide readers to the video, and not replace the video.  (Prompt at bottom).

https://www.decibio.com/insights/the-oncologists-role-in-the-digital-pathology-revolution-webinar


The webinar was co-hosted by Kate Gillete and Esther Abels.
See also the Decibio Insights blog, https://www.decibio.com/insights

###

AI Corner: Chat GPT 4o

Explore the Future of Digital Pathology: 
Insights from Oncologists and Pathologists

The digital revolution in pathology is here, and it's transforming more than just the lab—it’s reaching into the clinical side, reshaping the roles of oncologists as well. On September 5, 2024, Decibio hosted a public webinar, The Role of the Oncologist in the Digital Pathology Revolution, which is now available for free viewing. This invaluable session, paired with a detailed commercial research report (available for purchase), showcases how emerging digital pathology tools are expanding beyond the laboratory and into clinical decision-making.

The discussion features top experts, including Dr. Charles Gaulin from Dartmouth and Dr. Heinz-Josef Klümpen from Amsterdam UMC, alongside industry leaders like Omar Perez of AstraZeneca. They explore how diagnostic algorithms and remote digital consultations can lead to more efficient patient care. Oncologists are increasingly becoming key stakeholders in leveraging these tools to improve health outcomes.

Here are a couple of insights from the panel:

  1. Speeding up Consultations: Dr. Gaulin discussed how digital pathology could fast-track consultation workflows by enabling rapid access to shared slides for second opinions. This could potentially save days when every moment matters for patient treatment.
  2. Collaboration Across Disciplines: As Dr. Perez highlighted, digital pathology tools also enhance collaboration between pathologists and oncologists, particularly in tumor boards. Real-time consultations could revolutionize how treatment plans are made, improving patient outcomes by integrating multiple perspectives more efficiently.

These snippets offer a glimpse into the depth of the conversation, but to truly appreciate the value of digital pathology—and the critical role oncologists play—we highly recommend watching the full webinar on Decibio’s site. You’ll gain new insights into the future of diagnostic tools and how they can shape the next generation of cancer treatment.

##

Prompt for above

The Consultancy Decibio held a public webinar on September 5, 2024, on the theme, "The Role of the Oncologist in the Digital Pathology Revolution."   I write a blog in which I will highlight this valuable video, which is now archived for free viewing at Decibio.   (It is paired with a full-length written report, which is for purchase).   

I want my readers to know about the webinar and why I recommend they view it, with some information.   However, I don't want to give away too much because I respect the fact that Decibio wants viewers to watch it on the Decibio website and be exposed to Decibio's high quality for-purchase report.    However, we can give two or three informative nuggets from the transcript, as long as we don't displace the need to watch the video.   I will give you a clipping about the webinar, and the an autotranscript to work from.  

Sunday, September 22, 2024

Journal Club: "Vision of Future: Value Based Lab Medicine" (Plebani et al.)

Thanks to Joe Lennerz MD (Boston Gene) for highlighting the current European Federation of Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) conference in Padua Italy, on Linked In.

In particular, he called out "A vision to the future: Value-based laboratory medicine," published in concert with the conference by Plebani et al. in Clin Chem Lab Med.  Here.  Open access.

Here's the abstract:

The ultimate goal of value-based laboratory medicine is maximizing the effectiveness of laboratory tests in improving patient outcomes, optimizing resources and minimizing unnecessary costs. This approach abandons the oversimplified notion of test volume and cost, in favor of emphasizing the clinical utility and quality of diagnostic tests in the clinical decision-making. 

Several key elements characterize value-based laboratory medicine, which can be summarized in some basic concepts, such as organization of in vitro diagnostics (including appropriateness, integrated diagnostics, networking, remote patient monitoring, disruptive innovations), translation of laboratory data into clinical information and measurable outcomes, sustainability, reimbursement, ethics (e.g., patient empowerment and safety, data protection, analysis of big data, scientific publishing). Education and training are also crucial, along with considerations for the future of the profession, which will be largely influenced by advances in automation, information technology, artificial intelligence, and regulations concerning in vitro diagnostics. 

This collective opinion paper, composed of summaries from presentations given at the two-day European Federation of Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Strategic Conference “A vision to the future: value-based laboratory medicine” (Padova, Italy; September 23–24, 2024), aims to provide a comprehensive overview of value-based laboratory medicine, projecting the profession into a more clinically effective and sustainable future.

###

AI Corner

As an orthogonal control to the original paper, here's an AI summary and takeaways (Chat GPT 4o).

##

The paper presents the concept of value-based laboratory medicine, which prioritizes the clinical utility of diagnostic tests over volume and cost considerations, aiming to improve patient outcomes while optimizing resources and minimizing unnecessary expenses. It emphasizes integrating laboratory results into clinical decision-making to enhance diagnostic accuracy, patient care, and healthcare sustainability. 

The paper calls for innovative practices such as clinical laboratory stewardship, integrated diagnostics, data-driven decision-making, and sustainable operations to transform laboratory medicine into a more patient-centered, effective system. It also discusses future challenges in training, reimbursement, and ethical concerns related to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.


Key Takeaways:

  1. Value-Based Approach: Laboratory medicine should shift from a focus on test volume and costs to emphasizing clinical utility, improving patient outcomes, and optimizing resource use.

  2. Laboratory Stewardship: Demand management strategies, such as gatekeeping and test removal from profiles, can reduce overuse of tests and enhance clinical laboratory stewardship.

  3. Transforming Data into Clinical Information: Laboratory data must be structured, understandable, and easily accessible to both healthcare providers and patients to minimize misinterpretations and diagnostic errors.

  4. Integration of Diagnostics: Integrated diagnostics—combining imaging, pathology, lab tests, and AI—can improve disease diagnosis and care coordination, reducing time to diagnosis and therapy initiation.

  5. Sustainable Laboratory Practices: Clinical labs should adopt green initiatives to reduce energy consumption, waste, and hazardous chemicals, contributing to sustainable healthcare systems.

  6. Reimbursement Models: New reimbursement strategies, such as value-based payments, focus on rewarding patient outcomes rather than test volume, encouraging high-quality, cost-effective care.

  7. Ethical Challenges: Direct-to-consumer testing and AI-driven diagnostics present ethical issues around patient data privacy, test interpretation, and the potential for harm from inaccurate results.

  8. Home Testing and Wearables: Advances in home testing and wearable devices are empowering patients to manage their health remotely, though challenges around pre-analytical errors and data integration remain.

  9. Training of Laboratory Professionals: Future training programs need to integrate new technologies like AI, molecular biology, and digital pathology, preparing professionals for roles in personalized and genomic medicine.

  10. Artificial Intelligence in Laboratories: AI offers potential to enhance clinical decision-making in laboratories, but must be carefully regulated to address ethical concerns and ensure patient safety.

##
For most US lab professionals, including policy experts, what will be the most surprising part of the paper?
 
ChatGPT

For most U.S. lab professionals, particularly policy experts, the most surprising part of Plebani et al.’s paper might be the emphasis on sustainable laboratory practices as a key element in the future of value-based laboratory medicine. In the U.S., while there is increasing awareness of environmental impact across industries, the focus in laboratory medicine has traditionally been on clinical outcomes, operational efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. The paper’s call for labs to adopt “green” initiatives, such as reducing energy and water consumption, waste production, and hazardous chemicals, in order to contribute to a sustainable healthcare system, represents a shift from conventional priorities. The concept of linking [ecological] sustainability directly with laboratory quality and patient outcomes may be seen as both innovative and challenging for U.S. laboratories, where sustainability measures may not yet be widely implemented or incentivized in healthcare systems.

Friday, September 20, 2024

Brief Blog: FDA Data "Up" for ILMN Trusight FDA Panel

Back on August 21, 2024, Illumina announced it had received approval for a 517-gene panel, including TMB, and two PMA companion diagnostic claims.  The PMA claims are NTRK ("solid tumors") for Vitrakvi, and RET fusions (NSCLC) for Retevmo.

After the usual delay of a few weeks, FDA has posted the core documents supprting the approval.  These include the "approval order," (letter 5pp), the Summary of Safety and Effectiveness (175pp), and the official final Labeling (152pp includes instructions for use IFU).  The letter has a remark about 'agreed upon modifications' of reporting.

The extensive documentation (e.g. the 175 S&E review) might be scary for anyone intending to do LDT PMA tests with their own lab's local test under the FDA LDT regulations recently finalized.  On the other hand, PMA applications are not due til 2027 and FDA has planned to downclassify "most PMA tests" over a period of years.

Find the info on the home page for PMA P23011 here:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P230011

The FDA has separate serial summary effectiveness statements on pages 113-114 for NTRK, RET, and "for tumor profiling used by health care professionals."  

###

Approval OrderApproval Order
SummarySummary of Safety and Effectiveness
LabelingLabeling




Thursday, September 19, 2024

Medicare Trivia: The MAC Implementation File for NTAP

I was looking at the transmittal for FY2025 for hospital claims (here)  It referred to a "MAC Implementation File" for NTAP.   Find it as File 8 here.

File 8 is an Excel spreadsheet with 16 entries. 10 are Breakthrough Device pathway, 2 are QUIP (antibiotic) pathway, 4 are regular pathway.  (Having Breakthrough Device status at FDA makes it much easier to get NTAP).

A screenshot (click to enlarge) is below. Generally, devices large and small under BT Pathway get their own alphanumeric ICD procedure (device) code, which looks nothing like an outpatient CPT code.

Partial; Click to enlarge; See text for full link
##

Fun fact.  NTAP devices are said to have passed CMS review for significant additive, and new, clinical impact.  But there have been a few historical cases where a device got NTAP payment status yet had trouble getting LCDs to actually allow payments to process.

AI Corner: Example of AI in Use: The Lancet Global Report on Antibiotic Resistance

 AI Corner

This is an example of using AI prompts in different ways to get different AI views on the same source material.

This past week, September 16, LANCET published a 28-page global report on the crisis of antibiotic resistance.   It was covered in forums like Washington Post, as well as Nature; there was an Op Ed in Lancet.

Global report on antibiotic resistance (AMR) in Lancet and associated news.

Here, as a learning exercise, we gave Chat GPT 4 (subscription) three tasks.  In the first, summarize each input.   In the second, write a consolidated essay on the inputs.   Third, look at the 28 page original paper and highlight three key topics that were NOT discussed in the news articles provided.

###

AI REPORT

Here are summaries of the articles, op-ed, and major report you uploaded about antibiotic resistance:

  1. Washington Post Article (2024): The article highlights the projected impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), warning that over 39 million people could die from drug-resistant infections by 2050. The study shows a sharp rise in deaths, particularly among older adults, with South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa expected to be hardest hit. A key driver is the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, which accelerates resistance. The article stresses the importance of global cooperation and measures like antibiotic stewardship, clean water access, and vaccine development to mitigate the crisis​.

  2. Nature News Report (2024): This report reiterates the projection that 40 million people may die due to drug-resistant infections by 2050, with the elderly population being most affected. The rise in resistant bacteria, like Acinetobacter baumannii, is emphasized. Solutions proposed include wider access to appropriate antibiotics, research into Gram-negative drug resistance, and prioritization of regions like South Asia and Latin America. The report underscores the need for more investment in healthcare quality and infection prevention measures​.

  3. Lancet Op-Ed (2022): The op-ed describes AMR as a "hidden pandemic" that is growing alongside more visible health crises like COVID-19. It points out that AMR often extends hospital stays and increases mortality, especially in low-resource settings. The authors call for more attention and funding for preventing infections, better antibiotic use, and access to effective antibiotics, drawing a parallel to the global response to HIV, which receives far more funding despite AMR causing more deaths​.

  4. Nature Expert Opinions (2024): Experts from Bangladesh, Brazil, Nigeria, and the Middle East discuss region-specific challenges and solutions for AMR. In Bangladesh, data collection on resistance and improved neonatal care are prioritized. In Brazil, infection control in hospitals and public awareness campaigns are needed. Nigeria focuses on access to healthcare and sanitation, while in the Middle East, political instability complicates efforts to control resistance. The common theme is the need for tailored approaches and global investment​.

  5. Lancet Global Report on AMR (2024): This 28-page report is a comprehensive analysis of AMR trends from 1990 to 2021, with forecasts up to 2050. The report estimates that 1.14 million deaths in 2021 were directly attributable to bacterial AMR, and this number is expected to increase by 69.6% by 2050. Older adults, particularly those over 70, are projected to bear the largest burden. The report highlights the increasing resistance of pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus and Gram-negative bacteria. It calls for a multi-pronged approach involving improved healthcare, access to antibiotics, and development of new drugs, particularly targeting Gram-negative bacteria​.

These documents collectively emphasize the urgency of global action on antimicrobial resistance, with targeted interventions in low- and middle-income countries, more research and development of new antibiotics, and efforts to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use.


##
Write a consolidated article for experts.

##

Title: The Global Threat of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Health Policy Crisis Foretold

As antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rapidly escalates into a global health crisis, the 2024 Lancet report underscores the urgent need for coordinated action. With projections of 39-40 million deaths by 2050, the growing body of evidence calls for health policy reform, significant investment, and international collaboration to avert a catastrophic public health burden.

The Lancet’s newly published 28-page report, Global Burden of Antimicrobial Resistance 1990–2021, provides the most comprehensive analysis to date, documenting the rise of bacterial resistance from 1990 and forecasting the potential consequences through 2050. The report highlights that AMR was responsible for 1.14 million deaths in 2021 alone, with 4.71 million deaths associated with resistant infections. Without global intervention, AMR deaths are projected to increase by 69.6% by 2050, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations such as older adults, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa​.

Key Findings of the Lancet Report

The report provides sobering statistics on how antimicrobial resistance has evolved over the last 30 years. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections saw a stark rise, contributing to 550,000 deaths globally in 2021, while Gram-negative bacteria like Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter baumannii, which are resistant to carbapenems, have also seen an alarming increase in fatalities. The report forecasts that by 2050, nearly 2 million people will die from drug-resistant infections annually, with over 65% of these deaths occurring in individuals aged over 70​​.

One of the most concerning trends identified is the disparate impact of AMR based on geography. While deaths among children under 5 have decreased by more than 50%, the mortality rate for individuals over 70 has increased by over 80%, signaling that an aging population will exacerbate the AMR crisis​. Regions like South Asia and Latin America are expected to experience the highest mortality rates unless swift interventions are implemented.

Coverage in the Media

Major media outlets have taken note of the escalating crisis. The Washington Post highlights the same report's grim forecast of 39 million deaths from AMR by 2050, framing it as an impending disaster unless global action is taken. The article emphasizes the importance of antibiotic stewardship and calls for an international response to improve access to clean water, vaccines, and antibiotic development​.

In Nature News, a detailed analysis of the report notes that more than 92 million lives could be saved between 2025 and 2050 with better healthcare and access to antibiotics, underlining the immense potential for preventative strategies. However, experts caution that without these interventions, millions will continue to die from preventable infections​.

Op-Ed: The Overlooked Pandemic

An op-ed published in The Lancet earlier in 2022 referred to AMR as a “shadow pandemic,” calling attention to how it operates alongside but out of view compared to the high-profile crisis of COVID-19. The authors highlight how AMR leads to prolonged hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and needless deaths, particularly in low-resource settings where access to second-line antibiotics is limited​. The op-ed stresses that the global health community cannot afford to ignore this growing threat, especially when it disproportionately affects poorer regions. Its message is clear: while AMR may not receive the same visibility as viral pandemics, it poses an equally formidable challenge to global health infrastructure.

Health Policy Implications: A Call to Action

The 28-page Lancet report makes it abundantly clear that targeted health policy reforms are essential to curbing the AMR crisis. Key recommendations include:

  1. Global Surveillance and Data Collection: AMR data is often inconsistent or incomplete, particularly in LMICs. Policies that mandate more comprehensive data collection can help health authorities understand the true scale of the problem and direct resources where they are most needed.

  2. Antibiotic Stewardship: Misuse and overuse of antibiotics, both in clinical and agricultural settings, are primary drivers of resistance. Stricter regulations around antibiotic prescription and use, combined with public awareness campaigns, are critical in curbing AMR.

  3. Investment in New Antibiotics and Vaccines: The pipeline for new antibiotics, particularly those targeting Gram-negative bacteria, must be expanded. Coupled with the development of vaccines that prevent infections in the first place, this could reduce the burden of drug-resistant infections.

  4. Health System Strengthening: As the media coverage and the report both highlight, improvements in healthcare infrastructure, particularly in LMICs, will be vital. Hospitals need better infection prevention controls, and access to clean water and sanitation must be expanded to reduce infection rates.

  5. Targeted Regional Solutions: Expert opinions gathered by Nature emphasize the need for tailored solutions. In Bangladesh, for instance, improving maternal and neonatal care could prevent infections that often lead to antibiotic use. In Brazil, simple hospital hygiene measures could drastically reduce AMR in clinical settings​.

Conclusion

The Lancet report and subsequent media coverage paint a stark picture of the global health burden posed by antimicrobial resistance. Health policy experts must prioritize AMR in their agendas, pushing for more funding, research, and international collaboration. As AMR death rates climb, particularly among the elderly and in LMICs, the window for meaningful intervention is narrowing. The solution, as highlighted by the report and echoed across the media, lies in a comprehensive, globally coordinated response—one that addresses both the misuse of antibiotics and the systemic issues that contribute to resistant infections. If ignored, AMR could rival the deadliest pandemics of the modern era.


###

What are three of the most important findings in the 28 page global report, that were * NOT *   discussed in the Washington Post, in Nature news item, or in the Lancet Op Ed?

##

Here are three important findings from the 28-page Lancet report on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that were not covered in the Washington Post, Nature news item, or the Lancet Op-Ed:

  1. Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Surge: The Lancet report highlights that the resistance to carbapenems, a class of last-resort antibiotics, has surged more than any other antibiotic class. Between 1990 and 2021, deaths associated with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Acinetobacter baumannii, increased significantly. Deaths linked to these bacteria rose from 619,000 in 1990 to over 1.03 million in 2021, underscoring the critical need for new antibiotics specifically targeting Gram-negative pathogens​.

  2. Disparity Between Deaths and DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years): While the report projects a 69.6% increase in deaths due to AMR from 2022 to 2050, the increase in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) is much smaller, at 9.4%. This disparity suggests that while AMR will lead to more deaths, the overall health impact on surviving populations may not escalate at the same rate. This nuance highlights the complex nature of AMR's future burden, with death tolls rising more rapidly than overall disease impact, partially due to the concentration of deaths among older populations​.

  3. Impact of Sepsis and Non-Respiratory Infections: The report delves into the significant role of sepsis and non-respiratory infections, such as bloodstream infections and intra-abdominal infections, in driving AMR-related deaths. Sepsis mortality is particularly highlighted as an important contributor to AMR deaths, and the study emphasizes the need for better infection control and management of these non-respiratory infections, which have not received as much focus as respiratory diseases in media coverage​.

These findings bring to light important aspects of the AMR crisis that deserve more attention in public discussions and policy-making.


Commonwealth Report on US Health Costs, Quality. Article on Healthcare Innovation Pricing.

Commonwealth Fund publishes a report on international health costs and quality; US fares poorly.

Healthcare Dive summary here.  Commonwealth's42-page report here.

##

Separately, a HEOR article from Olivenca et al. on the market dynamics of innovation pricing for difficult and risky R&D products.   Essay here.  Original article here. (Open access pdf, J Comp Effect Res.)

##


####

##
Here's an AI summary of Olivenca:

The article discusses the complexities of the market design for innovative pharmaceuticals, which are often misunderstood. It emphasizes the unique market structure shaped by regulatory and legal frameworks, such as FDA regulations and intellectual property laws. The "blockbuster model" is highlighted, where revenues from successful drugs must cover the high costs and risks associated with numerous failed attempts. 
 
The article critiques the notion of regulating drug prices based solely on research and development (R&D) costs, arguing that such an approach overlooks the value that new medicines bring to patients and society. It also addresses misconceptions around R&D cost calculations, noting that these costs are challenging to pinpoint accurately and are not directly used to set drug prices. Instead, market-based drug prices reflect the benefits offered to various stakeholders, including patients and healthcare systems. The role of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) professionals in communicating these market dynamics to policymakers and the public is deemed crucial.

Here's an AI summary of Commonwealth:

The "Mirror, Mirror 2024" report by the Commonwealth Fund compares the performance of health systems in 10 countries, including the U.S., across five domains: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. The key findings indicate that Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are the top performers, while the U.S. ranks last with significantly lower performance. The U.S. also stands out for its high healthcare spending relative to its poorer outcomes.

The report emphasizes the U.S.'s unique challenges, such as limited access to care due to affordability issues, administrative inefficiencies caused by a complex insurance system, and pronounced inequities in care access and experiences, particularly among lower-income groups. Despite high spending, the U.S. struggles with life expectancy and preventable deaths, highlighting the need for comprehensive reforms. The report suggests that lessons can be drawn from other countries, particularly in areas like equity, efficiency, and health outcomes.


"DEX (Z codes) Welcomes Humana Medicare Advantage"

 Thanks to Ann Lambrix for pointing out a new announcement on the MolDx home page, "Welcome Humana Medicare Advantage to Dex!".




See the DEX Medicare Advantage home page here:

https://www.dexzcodes.com/palmetto/dex.nsf/T/Medicare%20Advantage%20Providers

Published 09/13/2024

The following national Medicare Advantage payers have begun requiring providers to submit a DEX Z-Code® identifier for Molecular Diagnostic Test Services on claims:

  • UnitedHealthcare®, effective Oct. 1, 2021
  • Optum Care, effective July 1, 2024
  • Humana, effective September 18, 2024


CMS Issues RFI: Consolidating MAC Jurisdictions

 The CMS Part A, Part B, MAC MAP has been the same for many years, since Palmetto won the "Cahaba" jurisdiction in 2017/2018.

CMS has released an RFI - request for information - about contracting some of the smaller remaining MAC areas.

Find the PDF here:

Find an article here.   Find the Sept 4 home page here.   Click on a link to see the 6 page PDF.  Respond by October 4 (see PDF).

Logistics

CMS mentions that current A/B MACs range from 4.6% to 14.7% in size (J8 vs JH).  Until now, CMS made awards so that no MAC entity had more than 26% of all the MAC jurisdictions.   With further consolidation, CMS may relax the 26% guideline.   However, it still wants to ensure there are multiple MAC contracts so that each eventual jurisdiction re-bid will have multiple offers and not just 1.  CMS provides 23 questions it seeks feedback on.  E.g.:  "What are the advantages and disadvantages of awarding MACs with longer period of performance [10y instead of 7y]?" 

AI CORNER


See AI summary below.

##

Chat GPT 4 Article:
CMS's Request for Information on MAC Consolidation
and 10-Year Contract Periods

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is exploring significant changes to the management of Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs). A recent Request for Information (RFI) seeks industry input on consolidating existing MAC jurisdictions and extending contract award periods to a full 10 years. This potential shift aims to enhance program efficiency, stability, and innovation in the administration of Medicare services.

Background on MACs and Current Consolidation Efforts

Since the early 2000s, CMS has replaced former Medicare claims administration contractors with regional MACs. Currently, CMS contracts with seven companies to provide claims administration and other services across 16 MAC contracts. Four of these MACs focus on durable medical equipment (DME), while the remaining 12 handle Medicare Part A and Part B claims, with some also processing Home Health and Hospice (HH+H) claims.

The RFI outlines CMS's plans to consolidate certain MAC jurisdictions:

  • Jurisdiction 5 (J5) and A/B HH+H MAC Jurisdiction 6 (J6) into "Jurisdiction G".
  • Jurisdiction 8 (J8) and A/B HH+H MAC Jurisdiction 15 (J15) into "Jurisdiction Q".

These consolidations are part of a revisited effort that was previously paused in 2014 to promote long-term program stability and maintain a competitive pool of contractors.

Proposed 10-Year MAC Contract Award Period

Under the current structure, MAC contracts are awarded for a seven-year period (one base year plus six option years). CMS is considering extending this period to the full 10 years authorized under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015. The rationale behind this extension includes:

  • Long-term Investments: Longer contract periods could incentivize MACs to invest in innovations and efficiencies.
  • Performance Correlation: Historical data suggests longer contracts are associated with higher performance scores.

Key Areas for Industry Feedback

CMS is seeking input from stakeholders on several aspects of this proposed consolidation and contract period extension:

  1. Consolidation Considerations: CMS wants feedback on the benefits and challenges of consolidating J5/J6 into "Jurisdiction G" and J8/J15 into "Jurisdiction Q." This includes potential impacts on provider communications, system security, and subcontract transitions.

  2. 10-Year Contract Period: CMS is interested in understanding the advantages and disadvantages of extending contract periods to 10 years. They are also exploring ways to incentivize and reward exceptional MAC performance over a longer period.

  3. Impact on Workflow Systems and Innovations: The RFI seeks input on how consolidation and longer contracts might affect MAC workflow systems, innovation development, and enhancements.

Response and Confidentiality

The RFI is not a formal request for proposal (RFP) and does not commit CMS to award a contract. Interested parties are encouraged to submit their responses within 30 days of the RFI publish date. CMS has highlighted the importance of protecting proprietary information, indicating that submissions will be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements unless protected under Exemption 4.

Conclusion

This RFI represents a pivotal moment for CMS and the broader Medicare administration landscape. The proposed consolidation of MAC jurisdictions and the extension of contract periods have the potential to reshape how Medicare services are administered, potentially improving efficiency, innovation, and the overall effectiveness of the Medicare program. Stakeholders in the Medicare policy space should closely follow these developments and consider contributing their insights to the ongoing discussion.


Monday, September 16, 2024

Chat GPT Faces the 2022, 400-page VALID ACT

Chat GPT wasn't around in 2022, but the 400-page VALID ACT was, and for a while, VALID had some momentum in Congress.

See a May 2022 article where authors Boiani and Robertson at Epstein Becker Green note that a version of VALID was attached to FDA user fee legislation:

https://natlawreview.com/article/valid-act-senate-action-brings-fda-regulation-ldts-closer-to-fruition

That article links to a still-up 400 page VALID version.

https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FDASLA%20Discussion%20Draft%20May%2017%202022.pdf

CHAT GPT wasn't around in 2022 to read VALID ACT, but it is now.  See below.

As a bonus, in closing I asked Chat GPT to also compare the 400 page VALID ACT and the 160 page FDA LDT rule.

Robots work to compare VALID and LDT RULE. Results below.


###

Summarize the VALID ACT.

##

The VALID Act (Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development Act) of 2022, included but not finalized as part of the FDASLA Act, represents a landmark effort to establish comprehensive regulatory oversight for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). 

Traditionally, LDTs have been regulated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), which focus on the laboratories performing the tests rather than the tests themselves. Had it passed, this act aimed to bring these tests under the regulatory purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), establishing a risk-based framework for their evaluation and oversight.

Key Provisions of the VALID Act:

  1. Risk-Based Framework: The VALID Act proposes a regulatory structure that categorizes in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs) based on the potential risk they pose to patients. This framework allows the FDA to apply different levels of scrutiny and oversight depending on the risk associated with each test. High-risk tests, which are more likely to impact patient outcomes if inaccurate, will undergo more rigorous review processes, while lower-risk tests may be subject to less stringent requirements. This tiered approach ensures that the regulatory burden is proportional to the potential risk, promoting patient safety without stifling innovation.

  2. Pre-Market Review and Technology Certification: The act introduces the concept of a pre-market review for higher-risk tests, requiring manufacturers to submit data demonstrating the safety and efficacy of their tests before they can be marketed. In addition to this, the VALID Act also proposes a technology certification process. Laboratories that meet certain criteria and demonstrate consistent quality and reliability in their testing processes can receive certification. This certification allows them to develop and modify tests without seeking FDA approval for each individual test, provided they adhere to the certification standards. This approach aims to strike a balance between ensuring test quality and fostering innovation.

  3. Transitional Provisions and Implementation: Recognizing the complexity and scope of these new regulations, the VALID Act includes provisions for a phased implementation. This transition period allows laboratories and manufacturers time to adapt to the new requirements. It includes clear guidelines and timelines for compliance, ensuring that the industry can move towards these new standards in a structured manner. The act also establishes an emergency use authorization (EUA) pathway for IVCTs, similar to the EUA process used during the COVID-19 pandemic. This allows for the rapid deployment of tests in public health emergencies, ensuring timely access to critical diagnostic tools.

  4. FDA Oversight and Enforcement: The VALID Act grants the FDA enhanced authority to oversee the development, marketing, and use of IVCTs. This includes the ability to inspect facilities, review test data, and take enforcement actions against laboratories and manufacturers that fail to comply with the regulatory requirements. The act also emphasizes post-market surveillance, requiring manufacturers to monitor the performance of their tests and report adverse events. This ensures that any issues with test accuracy or reliability are promptly identified and addressed.

  5. Resources and Funding: To support the implementation and enforcement of these new regulations, the VALID Act outlines the need for additional resources. This includes the establishment of user fees, similar to those used in other areas of FDA oversight, to fund the review and regulation of IVCTs. These fees will provide the FDA with the necessary funding to carry out its expanded responsibilities under the act, including conducting pre-market reviews, inspecting facilities, and overseeing post-market surveillance.

Implications for the Industry:

The VALID Act marks a significant shift in the regulation of laboratory-developed tests. By bringing LDTs under FDA oversight and establishing a risk-based framework, the act aims to ensure that all tests used in patient care meet consistent standards of quality and reliability. This has important implications for both patients and the healthcare industry. For patients, it promises more reliable and accurate diagnostic tests, which are crucial for guiding treatment decisions. For laboratories and test developers, it introduces new regulatory requirements and potential challenges, but also offers opportunities for innovation through the technology certification pathway.

In summary, the VALID Act seeks to modernize the regulatory landscape for laboratory-developed tests, providing a structured, risk-based approach to ensure test quality and patient safety while fostering innovation in diagnostic testing. This legislation aims to create a balanced regulatory environment that addresses the needs of patients, healthcare providers, and test developers in an evolving healthcare landscape.


SIDEBAR - KEY POINTS of VALID


Here are 15 key takeaways from the VALID Act of 2022:

  1. Risk-Based Regulation: The act introduces a risk-based framework for the regulation of in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs), including laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), with higher-risk tests requiring more stringent review.

  2. FDA Oversight: For the first time, LDTs will fall under the direct regulatory authority of the FDA, moving beyond the existing CLIA framework, which focuses primarily on laboratory operations.

  3. Pre-Market Review: High-risk tests will need to undergo pre-market review by the FDA, where manufacturers must provide data to demonstrate safety and efficacy before these tests can be marketed.

  4. Technology Certification: The act establishes a technology certification process for laboratories that demonstrate consistent quality and reliability, allowing them to modify tests without FDA approval for each test.

  5. Emergency Use Authorization: The VALID Act includes provisions for emergency use authorizations (EUA) for IVCTs, enabling rapid deployment of diagnostic tests during public health emergencies.

  6. Transitional Implementation: A phased implementation period is included to allow laboratories and manufacturers time to adapt to the new regulatory requirements, ensuring a smoother transition.

  7. Post-Market Surveillance: The act emphasizes the importance of post-market surveillance, requiring manufacturers to monitor the performance of their tests and report any adverse events or inaccuracies.

  8. Enforcement Authority: The FDA gains enhanced authority to inspect facilities, review test data, and take enforcement actions against non-compliant laboratories and manufacturers.

  9. User Fees: To support the expanded regulatory activities, the VALID Act proposes the establishment of user fees, similar to those in other areas of FDA regulation, to fund the review and oversight processes.

  10. Grandfathering of Existing Tests: Tests that are already on the market before the act's implementation may be subject to specific grandfathering provisions, which can exempt them from certain requirements temporarily.

  11. Harmonization with International Standards: The VALID Act seeks to align with international standards and practices in diagnostic testing to facilitate global harmonization and improve the reliability of tests across different markets.

  12. Flexible Pathways for Innovation: The act provides pathways for innovation, particularly through the technology certification process, which allows certified laboratories more flexibility in test development and modification.

  13. Safety and Efficacy Assurance: The primary goal of the act is to ensure that all IVCTs, especially high-risk LDTs, meet rigorous standards for safety, accuracy, and reliability, thereby protecting patient health.

  14. Impact on Laboratories: Laboratories will need to adhere to new regulatory standards and may need to invest in compliance measures, data generation for pre-market review, and post-market surveillance activities.

  15. Public Health Focus: By improving the regulatory oversight of IVCTs, the VALID Act aims to enhance public health outcomes by ensuring that diagnostic tests used in patient care are both accurate and reliable.

##

After taking a deep breath, compare the VALID ACT (never passed legisislation) to the FDA LDT REGULATION (finalized in May 2024.)

##

Comparison of the VALID Act and the FDA's 2024 LDT Regulation

VALID Act Overview:

  • Risk-Based Framework: The VALID Act introduces a risk-based regulatory structure for in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs), including LDTs, with higher-risk tests undergoing more rigorous review. It provides a technology certification pathway, offering flexibility for certified labs to develop and modify tests without FDA approval for each test.
  • Pre-Market Review: High-risk tests need to undergo FDA pre-market review, requiring manufacturers to demonstrate safety and efficacy before marketing.
  • Transitional Implementation: The Act includes a phased implementation period, allowing laboratories to adapt to the new requirements. It also establishes an emergency use authorization (EUA) pathway for IVCTs.
  • FDA Oversight: It grants the FDA authority to oversee the development, marketing, and use of IVCTs, including inspections and post-market surveillance.
  • User Fees: The Act proposes establishing user fees to support regulatory activities.
  • Grandfathering: Existing tests may be subject to specific grandfathering provisions.
  • Technology Certification: Certified labs can develop and modify tests without seeking FDA approval for each modification.

FDA's 2024 LDT Regulation Overview:

  • IVDs as Medical Devices: The regulation clarifies that in vitro diagnostic products (IVDs), including those manufactured by laboratories as LDTs, are considered medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
  • Phasing Out Enforcement Discretion: The FDA is phasing out its general enforcement discretion for LDTs, ensuring they are subject to the same enforcement approach as other IVDs. This includes MDR requirements, registration, listing requirements, labeling requirements, and pre-market review for higher-risk IVDs.
  • Four-Year Transition Period: The regulation introduces a four-year phaseout period, with compliance expectations rolling out in stages, starting from July 5, 2024.
  • Scope of Regulation: The rule applies to IVDs manufactured by laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and used within such laboratories.
  • Specific Provisions: There are targeted enforcement discretion policies for certain categories of LDTs, such as those manufactured within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) or Department of Defense (DoD) and certain New York State CLEP-approved LDTs.
  • Premarket Review: By the fourth year, the regulation expects compliance with premarket review requirements for moderate and low-risk IVDs offered as LDTs.
  • Enhanced Oversight and Benefits: The regulation aims to address the increased complexity and wider use of LDTs, emphasizing patient safety, effectiveness, and the reduction of misdiagnosis-related harms. The FDA anticipates annualized benefits over 20 years ranging from $0.99 billion to $13.62 billion, offsetting estimated compliance costs.

Key Differences:

  1. Legislative vs. Regulatory: The VALID Act is proposed legislation that would have required Congressional approval, while the FDA's LDT regulation is a final rule issued by the FDA itself.
  2. Risk-Based Approach: Both the VALID Act and the FDA’s regulation propose a risk-based framework, but the VALID Act provides a more defined pathway for high and low-risk tests, including a technology certification process.
  3. Implementation and Transition: The VALID Act suggests a transitional period with an emphasis on technology certification to facilitate adaptation, whereas the FDA's rule implements a four-year phased approach to full compliance.
  4. FDA's Authority: The FDA's 2024 regulation solidifies the FDA's authority over LDTs as medical devices, ending its longstanding enforcement discretion.
  5. Specific Enforcement Policies: The FDA's regulation includes detailed enforcement discretion policies for specific groups and conditions, such as LDTs within the VHA or approved by New York State CLEP, which the VALID Act does not explicitly address.
  6. Emergency Use Pathway: Both frameworks introduce or reference emergency use pathways, but the VALID Act emphasizes this as part of a broader emergency preparedness strategy.
  7. Scope and Coverage: The FDA's rule applies explicitly to LDTs within CLIA-certified labs, aligning with its existing device regulation structure, while the VALID Act seeks to establish a distinct regulatory category for IVCTs.

In summary, while both the VALID Act and the FDA's 2024 regulation aim to increase oversight and ensure the safety and effectiveness of LDTs, they differ in their approach, implementation strategy, and specific provisions for regulation and compliance.

The FDA LDT Rule: Why HLA Tests for Transplant Aren't Going to Be Hit by FDA

FDA plans to demand increasingly tight, phased-in regulation of nearly all laboratory-developed tests between 2025 and 2028.  However, a few test categories are exempt (at FDA's discretion on a rolling basis).  One is "HLA tests for transplant."

This line of reasoning may have gotten lost in the shuffle when the 160-page rule was released.   The FDA discussion is principally at 89 FR 37297-8 (May 6, 2028).   

I include (#1) an AI discussion of the FDA's thought process below. and then include (#2) the whole of the (columnar) FDA text at bottom.

It seems the main reason FDA exempts these tests are that the national transplant body (NOTA) mandates controls, but the controls the transplant body mandates are CAP approval.    This means FDA has to backpedal and say it doesn't think CAP approval makes tests safe, well, except here, where an old NOTA law endorses the same CAP approval.

##

AI Corner: Chat GPT Summarizes FDA on HLA pp. 37297-8.

##

 

The FDA has decided to exercise enforcement discretion for HLA tests used in the context of organ, stem cell, and tissue transplantation, allowing them to operate without direct FDA regulation. Several key reasons contribute to this decision:

  1. Urgency and Need for Rapid Adaptation: HLA tests for transplantation are performed in urgent situations where prompt decisions are crucial. When an organ, stem cell, or tissue becomes available, physicians must quickly assess the compatibility between the donor and recipient. Because new HLA alleles are continuously being identified, modifications to these tests need to be made rapidly to address specific mismatches and respond to the unique needs of each transplant case.

  2. Customization and Individualization: These tests are highly individualized within each medical facility. Laboratories often develop HLA tests that account for local HLA polymorphisms and patient demographics, leading to a level of customization that is necessary for effective transplantation outcomes. This individualization means that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation may not be suitable for these tests.

  3. Existing Oversight Programs: Several federal programs already provide oversight and help mitigate the risks of harm from inaccurate or unreliable HLA tests:

    • National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA): This act established the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN), which sets standards for the safe and equitable allocation of organs. The OPTN has requirements for the performance of HLA typing, antibody screening, and crossmatching tests.
    • National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP): The NMDP supports patients needing bone marrow or umbilical cord blood transplants and sets minimum requirements for organizations facilitating these transplants. It mandates HLA typing for donors and recipients and requires reporting of test results to maintain quality and accuracy.
    • Accreditation Requirements: Both OPTN and NMDP require histocompatibility laboratories to be accredited by either the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (ASHI) or the College of American Pathologists (CAP). These standards have provisions that specifically address OPTN and NMDP requirements, which add a layer of quality control.
  4. Risk Mitigation: The combination of oversight programs like OPTN and NMDP, along with CAP and ASHI accreditation requirements, helps mitigate the risk of inaccurate results. While the FDA does not view CAP or ASHI accreditation alone as sufficient for all in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), it considers the additional protections provided by these programs and the urgency of the situation to justify continued enforcement discretion.

  5. Highly Standardized HLA Tests for Blood Transfusion: The FDA's enforcement discretion does not extend to HLA tests used for blood transfusion, which are more standardized across institutions. This differentiation underscores the unique nature of HLA tests for transplantation and the need for flexibility in their regulation.

In summary, the FDA's decision not to regulate HLA tests for transplantation directly is based on the need for rapid, individualized testing in urgent situations, the presence of existing oversight mechanisms, and the high level of customization required for these tests.


###

FDA"s original May 2028 Fed Reg text follows.

###

FDA HLA TESTS DISCRETION 

89 FR 37297-8     May 6, 2024

  [FDA discusses “1976 type tests” and how they are defined and foresees further

clarification in the future.]

 

FDA intends to consider whether guidance containing additional

discussion and examples of [1976 type] tests that may fall within this category would be

helpful, and would issue any such guidance in accordance with good

guidance practices (see § 10.115).

 

# # #

 

Another category of such [enforcement discretion]

tests is HLA tests that are designed, manufactured,

and used within a single laboratory certified under CLIA that meets the

requirements to perform high- complexity histocompatibility testing

when used in connection with   

  •  organ,
  •        stem cell, ans
  •         tissue transplantation
  •       to perform HLA allele typing,
  •      for HLA  antibody screening and monitoring        
  • or
  •         for conducting real and ‘‘virtual’’ HLA crossmatch tests
  •         (hereinafter ‘‘HLA tests  for transplantation’’).

 [Bullets BQ]

 Physicians must often make prompt decisions about

transplantation based on medical judgment regarding their patient’s

condition and degree of mismatch between the donor and patient should

an organ, stem cells, or tissue become available. Because new alleles are

continuously identified, and the need for assessing degree of crossmatch is

generally urgent, modifications to HLA tests for transplantation are often made

rapidly in response to urgent situations.

 

Further, these tests are often individualized within each medical

facility; for example, they include reagents that reflect local HLA

polymorphisms and patient demographics.

  

In addition, oversight under certain Federal programs helps to mitigate the

risks of harm from inaccurate and unreliable HLA tests for transplantation.

 

For example, the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 created

the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN).

 

NOTA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 273 et seq.), and the OPTN 

Final Rule, 42 CFR part 121, establish a comprehensive system for the safe and

equitable allocation, distribution, and transplantation of donated organs.

 

The OPTN Final Rule and OPTN bylaws and policies govern operation of all member

transplant hospitals, organ procurement organizations, and histocompatibility

laboratories in the United States. The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act

of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–129), as amended, authorizes a national registry (‘‘Be the

Match Registry’’) to support patients in need of bone marrow or umbilical cord

blood transplants, which is operated under Federal contracts by the National

Marrow Donor Program® (NMDP) (Ref. 45).

 

NMDP sets forth minimum requirements for organizations working

through the NMDP to facilitate stem cell transplants (Refs. 46 and 47).

 

OPTN has requirements for performance of HLA typing, antibody

screening, and crossmatching tests, and NMDP requires HLA typing for donors

and potential recipients for stem cell transplants facilitated by the Be the

Match Registry, as well as reporting of test results to NMDP (Refs. 47 and 48).

Both OPTN and NMDP have procedures in place for identifying, investigating,

and reporting discrepant tests results (Refs. 48 and 49).

 

 

In addition to these safeguards designed to identify and resolve

potentially inaccurate results, each OPTN member histocompatibility

laboratory must, among other things, meet specified American Society for

Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (ASHI) and/or College of American

Pathologists (CAP) standards as a condition of OPTN membership (Ref.

50). NMDP similarly requires histocompatibility laboratories used by

U.S. transplant centers and donor centers to be accredited by CAP and/or

ASHI (Refs. 46, 51 and 52). Both ASHI and CAP standards have provisions that

specifically address OPTN and/or NMDP requirements for

histocompatibility laboratories that perform tests for those programs.

Importantly, as discussed below, FDA does not believe that a CAP or ASHI

accreditation of a laboratory, on its own, is sufficient to mitigate risk and provide

assurance of the safety and effectiveness for all IVDs offered as LDTs by the

accredited laboratory. 

 

However, we consider the fact that OPTN and NMDP

require adherence to CAP and/or ASHI standards, including provisions specific

to OPTN and NMDP requirements, to be one factor that helps mitigate risk of

inaccurate results or unreliable HLA tests for transplantation.

 

After considering this factor in combination with the protections provided through

 the programs described above and the urgent circumstances in which HLA

tests for transplantation may be modified and performed, as well as the

comments received on our proposed approach to HLA tests for

transplantation, FDA intends to continue the general enforcement

discretion approach for these tests. We note that this enforcement discretion

policy does not apply to HLA tests used for blood transfusion, which are highly

standardized across institutions, nor does it apply to any IVDs identified in

section V.A.2 as falling outside the scope of the phaseout policy or as

discussed in section V.B.