FDA Once Again Stands Athwart Biomedical Innovation, Yelling 'Stop!'
New red tape will result in fewer safe and effective diagnostic tests.

As earlier threatened, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just issued new rules that will significantly slow down the development of new diagnostic tests. Specifically, the agency requires that all laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) be submitted to its regulators before the tests can be offered to patients and physicians. As I explained earlier, LDTs are in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests for clinical use that are designed, manufactured, and performed by individual laboratories. They can diagnose illnesses and guide treatments by detecting relevant biomarkers in saliva, blood, or tissues; the tests can identify small molecules, proteins, RNA, DNA, cells, and pathogens. For example, some assess the risks of developing Alzheimer's disease or guide the treatment of breast cancer.
Until now, the FDA had not sought to exercise regulatory control over the development and deployment of such tests.
"LDTs are being used more widely than ever before—for use in newborn screening, to help predict a person's risk of cancer, or aid in diagnosing heart disease and Alzheimer's. The agency cannot stand by while Americans continue to rely on results of these tests without assurance that they work," said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf in a press release.
Interestingly, most of the thousands of current LDTs must be OK since the new FDA rules grandfather them in. As the agency reasonably observes, imposing its new regulations now would result in "the risk that laboratories may stop offering safe and effective tests on which patients and the healthcare community currently rely." Well, yes. The unstated flip side of this observation is that the new costs and red tape will almost inevitably result in the development of fewer safe and effective LDTs that would otherwise have been available to future patients and clinicians.
"Laboratory developed testing services are not medical devices and subjecting them to medical device regulation will harm patient access to needed testing and compromise innovations that drive personalized medicine," said American Clinical Laboratory Association President Susan Van Meter in a statement. "The rule will limit access to scores of critical tests, increase health care costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics." That sounds about right.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
MOAR TESING NEEDED!
Somewhat on-topic: If some of ya'll don't want anything mRNA-related, it just means more for the rest of us:
'Game-changer' cancer jab offers hope of a cure: NHS launches trial of world's first personalised vaccine to destroy melanomas - and it uses same tech as pioneering Covid shots
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13350191/cancer-vaccine-melanoma-breakthrough-NHS-trial.html
Now if only the British NHS doesn't ration it like candy to kiddies and it can spread worldwide and get immediate approval in the U.S. Cancer may be going the way of Leprosy, Bubonic Plague, and Polio!
🙂
😉
Hope it works better than the Covid jabs.
I'll consider mRNA therapies that have been proven safe and effective through normal research procedures, or if effective alternatives are not available and the condition is serious enough to warrant some risk. The COVID mRNA shots don't meet that standard. I wish them luck with the cancer therapies.
I wish them luck with future cancer therapies. Here's hoping they don't waste too much more time and effort on current mRNA technology which, absent transient sensationalist fabrications, has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be ineffective and unreliable at even trivial therapies, cancer or others, for which there are far more effective methodologies.
There are a lot of hedging words in your article. But declare success before tests are done. Worked for Covid.
I can guarantee that it will work at least as well as the covid jabs. Is that not good enough?
He still died of cancer, but it could have been so much worse.
I can't tell you how long I've heard the terms "game changer" or "silver bullet" bandied about with regard to mRNA and cancer. If I had to guess, it would be somewhere between not as long as jetpacks, but longer than self-driving cars; about the same amount of time as cold fusion.
One of my personal favorites was from NPR like 15 yrs. ago when liposome technology was the big wave. They were interviewing a European doctor about talking about how (with liposomes!) it could be personally tailored and unwittingly said that [paraphrased] while tailored mRNA therapy might not be a "silver bullet" for all of cancer, it might be a silver bullet for one person or one type of cancer, and a copper bullet for the next person's cancer or therapy, and a lead bullet for the next person's therapy.
I’m a bit confused since a melanoma means you already have skin cancer, so calling it a ‘vaccine’ is…not a typical usage of that word. Reading into it a bit more, it seems they are referring to the idea that it would continue to work going forward, meaning reoccurrence of that particular cancer shouldn’t happen. Smokers, rejoice!
If true, it would be revolutionary but after decades of false hope on that front I’ll remain skeptical.
The weird part, at least to me, is why limit the test to melanoma in particular? I’d suppose since it’s a surface cancer, less risk of internal complications since having one’s immune system target cancer in a patients lungs could well be fatal.
Of course, since melanoma can spread into all sorts of places...well...I'm sure you get the idea.
Words no longer have the meaning they once did, grandpa.
I mean, it's not technically wrong since it does (in theory) keep working after the original cancer is killed off. It's just that it can't work in advance of cancer since they would have no genetic profile of a currently existing cancer to target.
In all probability, it isn't going to work out like they say since cancer cells do not have a uniform genetic profile that I'm aware of so at the very best you'd likely need a separate injection for each incidence of cancer. I honestly have no idea what they are targeting specifically though, so I'm probably way off base with at least some of those assumptions.
Which is still a lightyear leap ahead in cancer treatment, assuming it works at all like they believe it will.
Boosters for the win!
I’m a bit confused since a melanoma means you already have skin cancer, so calling it a ‘vaccine’ is…not a typical usage of that word.
You're not confused. They're just performing the same lie as they did with masks and COVID and the vaccine and COVID.
Melanoma is far and away the most diagnosable, treatable, and survivable cancers on the planet. Especially in "The West and West Adjacent".
It's the snake oil of the 21st century. They can use statistics to *prove* that their tonic cured your tooth pain. Even if the actual treatment was to pull the tooth, a procedure that was already near 100% safe and effective with no downsides, and the tonic just delayed you taking that action, it worked.
If you develop skin cancer, wait 10 yrs., then apply to socialized medicine for treatment, your 98.5% chance of survival can be increased by 50% to 99.25% if you go through the additional complicated procedure of getting your tumor excised, having it sequenced, and having a tailor-made vaccine... which isn't really or necessarily better or faster than monoclonal or polyconal antibodies and certainly not better than avoiding cancer in the first place, waiting around for 10 yrs. to get it treated, or relying on the NHS to treat it, but... mRNA! And spending well outside the ROI for medical care makes sense when government does it!
I hope it works. I don't think there are many who are completely opposed to any use of the mRNA tech. But in medicine it's all about cost/benefit. And that calculation works out a lot different with a deadly cancer than with a respiratory virus that most people don't really have that much reason to fear, particularly when the shot isn't that effective, as is the case with the covid vaccines.
And for COVID, we have the alternative of the Novavax vaccine, which is an actual vaccine and not an mRNA therapy.
Accurate and effective medical tests is well within the FDA's mandate. I want to know that laboratory tests actually work. Prior to the FDA the medical equipment and medication market was a free-for-all and it was a disaster. Lets not go back to those days.
What is the current definition of a medical device that the FDA uses?
Careful, you're going to summon the squirrel and get a mass of nonsense about lung flutes.
I'll just have to scroll past the grey boxes.
We can only trust government, not independent labs like UL.
So, it's your opinion that tests are a drug or food?
Weird.
LOL. Will you be here all week?
How about this: if you want an FDA approved test, then make sure you get an FDA approved test. Other people can choose to buy unapproved tests if they want to.
If that’s what you want the FDA to do with mRNA Zeb, you should pass a law specifically telling the FDA to do that with mRNA and forego all this vague, general "Approved" vs. "Provisionally Approved" vs. "LDT" nonsense… right?
Anarchist!
No. The FDA has authority to regulate "food" and "drugs" (it's in the name) and was later granted authority to regulate "medical devices". Their legal authority to regulate any possible "test", however, is sketchy at best.
I am wondering when the legislature is going to start passing bills to stop the truly mad regulations.
Oh, wait. Maybe I already know.
When the asteroid hits.
The function of the FDA is to provide protectionist mafia style protection of revenue to a limited cartel. We have no reason for its continued existence. Kill it.
^THIS
What they do is treat the collection device with its accompanying patient instructions as a new medical device. Well, yeah, if you take the statutes literally. The problem is not treating them as a class 1 device, equivalent to existing collection devices handled by health personnel.
What they do is whatever they want, then perform mental gymnastics and twist words like pretzels to rationalize it.
Remember that day the US Constitution was amended to authorize Food and Drug Regulation?
Yeah; me neither.
F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
A misleading column to say the least. First FDA did not regulate or oversee LDT for more than three decades even though the tests fell under its authority according to the FD&C Act. The rule change is to eliminate this FDA general enforcement discretion. Why? Several reasons. LDT's were originally built around local clinical lab operations. The local clinical experience would in some sense serve as a post-marketing justification for the tests utility. Unfortunately there is not much by way of post marketing surveillance around the test outcomes. Some tests have now expanded to where they are distributed widely without justification for use or utility. The mantra for FDA is do no unwarranted harm, and so devices and drugs must show that patients have some benefit. FDA is now saying that test developers must present their data for utility. How does that stifle innovation?
Test manufacturing and quality control are also crucial issues. FDA had a real world test of unrestricted test development during the COVID pandemic. Under the EUA scheme, tests were deployed with little oversight. That proved to be a problematic procedure. Of 125 tests approved under the EUA 82 proved to be deficient and several were removed from the market. That is not a desirable outcome.
Regulation of medical test devices and diagnostics under a common regulatory regime is advisable simply from a consumer and patient point of view. I want to know that the test being administered has some diagnostic value and will provide actionable results to direct my care. Otherwise it is nothing other than a scam.
And those grandfathered tests? The pharmaceutical industry had a similar outcome when FDA created the monograph system for over the counter medications. Drugs that were shown to be safe were allowed, those that were not were removed from the market. Efficacy was of less concern. Going forward all marketed drugs would come through the IND or ANDA process before commercialization. Safety and efficacy would be demonstrated. Post marketing surveillance would inform if further review or action were warranted. A similar regulatory regime will come to being with diagnostic tests.
Almost exactly four years ago the federal government was ordering states not to test for COVID-19 without permission from federal regulators. The government later offered a less effective test not suffering from NIH syndrome. Did they learn nothing or are their memories short?
We have always been at war with Eastasia.