Literature DB >> 24331365

Revisiting oversight and regulation of molecular-based laboratory-developed tests: a position statement of the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez1, Rajyasree Emmadi2, Stephen P Day3, Robert F Klees4, Jennifer R Leib5, Elaine Lyon6, Jan A Nowak7, Victoria M Pratt8, Mary S Williams9, Roger D Klein10.   

Abstract

Since 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration, Congress, and other policymakers have explored the appropriate way to guarantee the clinical and analytical validity of laboratory-developed tests. In the past, the Association for Molecular Pathology has publicly urged the Food and Drug Administration to exercise caution in implementing regulatory changes that could potentially hinder innovation or interfere with the practice of medicine. In 2012, the Association for Molecular Pathology Professional Relations Committee chose to develop this paper with the goal of outlining the best methods for ensuring appropriate oversight and validation of molecular diagnostic procedures. At the conclusion of this process, the workgroup reaffirmed the Association's previous position that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments program can provide the appropriate level of oversight for the vast majority of diagnostic tests.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24331365     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.10.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1525-1578            Impact factor:   5.568


  8 in total

1.  Noninvasive prenatal testing in China: Future detection of rare genetic diseases?

Authors:  Lin Mei; Qi Tang; Baiyu Sun; Lingzhong Xu
Journal:  Intractable Rare Dis Res       Date:  2014-08

2.  FDA's draft guidance on laboratory-developed tests increases clinical and economic risk to adoption of pharmacogenetic testing.

Authors:  Kenneth D Levy; Victoria M Pratt; Todd C Skaar; Gail H Vance; David A Flockhart
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.126

3.  Comparison of Laboratory-Developed Tests and FDA-Approved Assays for BRAF, EGFR, and KRAS Testing.

Authors:  Annette S Kim; Angela N Bartley; Julia A Bridge; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; Alexander J Lazar; Neal I Lindeman; Thomas A Long; Jason D Merker; Alex J Rai; David L Rimm; Paul G Rothberg; Patricia Vasalos; Joel T Moncur
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

4.  National Maintenance Cost for Precision Diagnostics Under the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge In Vitro Clinical Test Development (VALID) Act of 2020.

Authors:  Richard Huang; Laura Lasiter; Adam Bard; Bruce Quinn; Christina Young; Roberto Salgado; Jeff Allen; Jochen K Lennerz
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2021-04-21

Review 5.  A Tutorial for Pharmacogenomics Implementation Through End-to-End Clinical Decision Support Based on Ten Years of Experience from PREDICT.

Authors:  Michelle Liu; Cindy L Vnencak-Jones; Bartholomew P Roland; Cheryl L Gatto; Janos L Mathe; Shari L Just; Josh F Peterson; Sara L Van Driest; Asli O Weitkamp
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2020-11-15       Impact factor: 6.903

6.  The audacity of interpretation: Protecting patients or piling on?

Authors:  Misha Angrist
Journal:  Appl Transl Genom       Date:  2014-09-01

7.  Is the genomic translational pipeline being disrupted?

Authors:  Marc S Williams
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2015-06-14       Impact factor: 4.639

8.  A Balanced Look at the Implications of Genomic (and Other "Omics") Testing for Disease Diagnosis and Clinical Care.

Authors:  Scott D Boyd; Stephen J Galli; Iris Schrijver; James L Zehnder; Euan A Ashley; Jason D Merker
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 4.096

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.