Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Genetic Health Risk Assessment System, 51560-51567 [2017-24159]
Download as PDF
51560
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
the performance of the device. The
study must be conducted using samples
collected from apparently healthy male
and female adults at least 21 years of age
and older from at least 3 distinct
climatic regions within the United
States in different weather seasons. The
ethnic, racial, and gender background of
this study population must be
representative of the U.S. population
demographics.
(4) The results of the device as
provided in the 21 CFR 809.10(b)
compliant labeling and any test report
generated must be reported as only total
25-hydroxyvitamin D.
Dated: October 31, 2017.
Lauren Silvis,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2017–24161 Filed 11–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA–2017–N–4341]
Medical Devices; Immunology and
Microbiology Devices; Classification of
the Genetic Health Risk Assessment
System
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA, the Agency, or
we) is classifying the genetic health risk
assessment system into class II (special
controls). The special controls that
apply to the device type are identified
in this order and will be part of the
codified language for the genetic health
risk assessment system’s classification.
We are taking this action because we
have determined that classifying the
device into class II (special controls)
will provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of the device.
We believe this action will also enhance
patients’ access to beneficial innovative
devices, in part by reducing regulatory
burdens.
DATES: This order is effective November
7, 2017. The classification was
applicable on April 6, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5866,
steven.tjoe@fda.hhs.gov.
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Upon request, FDA has classified the
genetic health risk assessment system as
class II (special controls), which we
have determined will provide a
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness. In addition, we believe
this action will enhance patients’ access
to beneficial innovation, in part by
reducing regulatory burdens by placing
the device into a lower device class than
the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III
occurs by operation of law and without
any action by FDA, regardless of the
level of risk posed by the new device.
Any device that was not in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976, is
automatically classified as, and remains
within, class III and requires premarket
approval unless and until FDA takes an
action to classify or reclassify the device
(see section 513(f)(1) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1))). We
refer to these devices as
‘‘postamendments devices’’ because
they were not in commercial
distribution prior to the date of
enactment of the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976, which amended
the FD&C Act.
FDA may take a variety of actions in
appropriate circumstances to classify or
reclassify a device into class I or II. We
may issue an order finding a new device
to be substantially equivalent under
section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a
predicate device that does not require
premarket approval. We determine
whether a new device is substantially
equivalent to a predicate by means of
the procedures for premarket
notification under section 510(k) of the
FD&C Act and part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k)
and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
FDA may also classify a device
through ‘‘De Novo’’ classification, a
common name for the process
authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act
of 1997 established the first procedure
for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105–
115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation
Act modified the De Novo application
process by adding a second procedure
(Pub. L. 112–144). A device sponsor
may utilize either procedure for De
Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person
submits a 510(k) for a device that has
not previously been classified. After
receiving an order from FDA classifying
the device into class III under section
513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
then requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather
than first submitting a 510(k) and then
a request for classification, if the person
determines that there is no legally
marketed device upon which to base a
determination of substantial
equivalence, that person requests a
classification under section 513(f)(2) of
the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo
classification, FDA is required to
classify the device by written order
within 120 days. The classification will
be according to the criteria under
section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Although the device was automatically
within class III, the De Novo
classification is considered to be the
initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification
will enhance patients’ access to
beneficial innovation, in part by
reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA
classifies a device into class I or II via
the De Novo process, the device can
serve as a predicate for future devices of
that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21
U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other
device sponsors do not have to submit
a De Novo request or PMA in order to
market a substantially equivalent device
(see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining
‘‘substantial equivalence’’). Instead,
sponsors can use the less-burdensome
510(k) process, when necessary, to
market their device.
II. De Novo Classification
On June 28, 2016, 23andMe, Inc.
submitted a request for De Novo
classification of the 23andMe Personal
Genome Service (PGS) Test. FDA
reviewed the request in order to classify
the device under the criteria for
classification set forth in section
513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if
general controls by themselves are
insufficient to provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness,
but there is sufficient information to
establish special controls that, in
combination with the general controls,
provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use (see 21 U.S.C.
360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the
information submitted in the request,
we determined that the device can be
classified into class II with the
establishment of special controls. FDA
has determined that these special
controls, in addition to the general
controls, will provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of the device.
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, on April 6, 2017, FDA
issued an order to the requester
classifying the device into class II. FDA
is codifying the classification of the
device by adding 21 CFR 866.5950. We
have named the generic type of device
genetic health risk assessment system,
and it is identified as a qualitative in
vitro molecular diagnostic system used
for detecting variants in genomic
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) isolated
from human specimens that will
provide information to users about their
genetic risk of developing a disease to
inform lifestyle choices and/or
conversations with a health care
professional. This assessment system is
for over-the-counter use. This device
51561
does not determine the person’s overall
risk of developing a disease.
FDA has identified the following risks
to health associated specifically with
this type of device and the measures
required to mitigate these risks in table
1.
TABLE 1—GENETIC HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEM RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Identified risk
Mitigation measures
Incorrect understanding of the device and test system ...........................
General controls, Special control (1) (21 CFR 866.5950(b)(1)), Special
control (3) (21 CFR 866.5950(b)(3)), and Special control (4) (21 CFR
866.5950 (b)(4)).
General controls, Special control (2) (21 CFR 866.5950(b)(2)), and
Special control (3) (21 CFR 866.5950(b)(3)).
General controls, Special control (1) (21 CFR 866.5950(b)(1)), Special
control (3) (21 CFR 866.5950(b)(3)), and Special control (4) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(4)).
Incorrect test results (false positives, false negatives) ............................
Incorrect interpretation of test results .......................................................
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
FDA has determined that special
controls, in combination with the
general controls, address these risks to
health and provide reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness. In order for
a device to fall within this classification,
and thus avoid automatic classification
in class III, it would have to comply
with the special controls named in this
final order. The necessary special
controls appear in the regulation
codified by this order. This device is
subject to premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the
FD&C Act.
Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) if,
after notice of our intent to exempt and
consideration of comments, we
determine by order that premarket
notification is not necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of the device. We believe
this may be such a device. The notice
of intent to exempt the device from
premarket notification requirements is
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
III. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final order establishes special
controls that refer to previously
approved collections of information
found in other FDA regulations. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
collections of information are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The collections of information in
part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket
notification submissions have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0120, and the collections of
information in 21 CFR parts 801 and
809, regarding labeling have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0485.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical
devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is
amended as follows:
PART 866—IMMUNOLOGY AND
MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 866
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 360l, 371.
2. Add § 866.5950 to subpart F to read
as follows:
■
§ 866.5950
system.
Genetic health risk assessment
(a) Identification. A genetic health
risk assessment system is a qualitative
in vitro molecular diagnostic system
used for detecting variants in genomic
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) isolated
from human specimens that will
provide information to users about their
genetic risk of developing a disease to
inform lifestyle choices and/or
conversations with a health care
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
professional. This assessment system is
for over-the-counter use. This device
does not determine the person’s overall
risk of developing a disease.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special controls for this
device are:
(1) The 21 CFR 809.10 compliant
labeling and any prepurchase page and
test report generated, unless otherwise
specified, must include:
(i) A section addressed to users with
the following information:
(A) The limiting statement explaining
that this test provides genetic risk
information based on assessment of
specific genetic variants but does not
report on a user’s entire genetic profile.
This test [does not/may not, as
appropriate] detect all genetic variants
related to a given disease, and the
absence of a variant tested does not rule
out the presence of other genetic
variants that may be related to the
disease.
(B) The limiting statement explaining
that other companies offering a genetic
risk test may be detecting different
genetic variants for the same disease, so
the user may get different results using
a test from a different company.
(C) The limiting statement explaining
that other factors such as environmental
and lifestyle risk factors may affect the
risk of developing a given disease.
(D) The limiting statement explaining
that some people may feel anxious
about getting genetic test health results.
This is normal. If the potential user feels
very anxious, such user should speak to
his or her doctor or other health care
professional prior to collection of a
sample for testing. This test is not a
substitute for visits to a doctor or other
health care professional. Users should
consult with their doctor or other health
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51562
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
care professional if they have any
questions or concerns about the results
of their test or their current state of
health.
(E) Information about how to obtain
access to a genetic counselor, boardcertified clinical molecular geneticist, or
equivalent health care professional
about the results of a user’s test.
(F) The limiting statement explaining
that this test is not intended to diagnose
a disease, tell you anything about your
current state of health, or be used to
make medical decisions, including
whether or not you should take a
medication or how much of a
medication you should take.
(G) A limiting statement explaining
that the laboratory may not be able to
process a sample, and a description of
the next steps to be taken by the
manufacturer and/or the customer, as
applicable.
(ii) A section in your 21 CFR 809.10
labeling and any test report generated
that is for health care professionals who
may receive the test results from their
patients with the following information:
(A) The limiting statement explaining
that this test is not intended to diagnose
a disease, determine medical treatment,
or tell the user anything about their
current state of health.
(B) The limiting statement explaining
that this test is intended to provide
users with their genetic information to
inform lifestyle decisions and
conversations with their doctor or other
health care professional.
(C) The limiting statement explaining
that any diagnostic or treatment
decisions should be based on testing
and/or other information that you
determine to be appropriate for your
patient.
(2) The genetic test must use a sample
collection device that is FDA-cleared,
-approved, or -classified as 510(k)
exempt, with an indication for in vitro
diagnostic use in over-the-counter DNA
testing.
(3) The device’s labeling must include
a hyperlink to the manufacturer’s public
Web site where the manufacturer shall
make the information identified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section publicly
available. The manufacturer’s home
page, as well as the primary part of the
manufacturer’s Web site that discusses
the device, must provide a hyperlink to
the Web page containing this
information and must allow unrestricted
viewing access. If the device can be
purchased from the Web site or testing
using the device can be ordered from
the Web site, the same information must
be found on the Web page for ordering
the device or provided in a publicly
accessible hyperlink on the Web page
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
for ordering the device. Any changes to
the device that could significantly affect
safety or effectiveness would require
new data or information in support of
such changes, which would also have to
be posted on the manufacturer’s Web
site. The information must include:
(i) An index of the material being
provided to meet the requirements in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section and its
location.
(ii) A section that highlights summary
information that allows the user to
understand how the test works and how
to interpret the results of the test. This
section must, at a minimum, be written
in plain language understandable to a
lay user and include:
(A) Consistent explanations of the risk
of disease associated with all variants
included in the test. If there are different
categories of risk, the manufacturer
must provide literature references that
support the different risk categories. If
there will be multiple test reports and
multiple variants, the risk categories
must be defined similarly among them.
For example, ‘‘increased risk’’ must be
defined similarly between different test
reports and different variant
combinations.
(B) Clear context for the user to
understand the context in which the
cited clinical performance data support
the risk reported. This includes, but is
not limited to, any risks that are
influenced by ethnicity, age, gender,
environment, and lifestyle choices.
(C) Materials that explain the main
concepts and terminology used in the
test that include:
(1) Definitions: Scientific terms that
are used in the test reports.
(2) Prepurchase page: This page must
contain information that informs the
user about what information the test
will provide. This includes, but is not
limited to, variant information, the
condition or disease associated with the
variant(s), professional guideline
recommendations for general genetic
risk testing, the limitations associated
with the test (e.g., test does not detect
all variants related to the disease) and
any precautionary information about the
test the user should be aware of before
purchase. When the test reports the risk
of a life-threatening or irreversibly
debilitating disease or condition for
which there are few or no options to
prevent, treat, or cure the disease, a user
opt-in section must be provided. This
opt-in page must be provided for each
disease that falls into this category and
must provide specific information
relevant to each test result. The opt-in
page must include:
(i) An option to accept or decline to
receive this specific test result;
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(ii) Specification of the risk involved
if the user is found to have the specific
genetic test result;
(iii) Professional guidelines that
recommend when genetic testing for the
associated target condition is or is not
recommended; and
(iv) A recommendation to speak with
a health care professional, genetic
counselor, or equivalent professional
before getting the results of the test.
(3) Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
page: This page must provide
information that is specific for each
variant/disease pair that is reported.
Information provided in this section
must be scientifically valid and
supported by corresponding
publications. The FAQ page must
explain the health condition/disease
being tested, the purpose of the test, the
information the test will and will not
provide, the relevance of race and
ethnicity to the test results, information
about the population to which the
variants in the test is most applicable,
the meaning of the result(s), other risk
factors that contribute to disease,
appropriate followup procedures, how
the results of the test may affect the
user’s family, including children, and
links to resources that provide
additional information.
(iii) A technical information section
containing the following information:
(A) Gene(s) and variant(s) the test
detects using standardized
nomenclature, Human Genome
Organization nomenclature and
coordinates as well as Single Nucleotide
Polymorphism Database (dbSNP)
reference SNP numbers (rs#).
(B) Scientifically established diseaserisk association of each variant detected
and reported by the test. This risk
association information must include:
(1) Genotype-phenotype information
for the reported variants.
(2) Table of expected frequency and
risks of developing the disease in
relevant ethnic populations and the
general population.
(3) A statement about the current
professional guidelines for testing these
specific gene(s) and variant(s).
(i) If professional guidelines are
available, provide the recommendations
in the professional guideline for the
gene, variant, and disease, for when
genetic testing should or should not be
performed, and cautionary information
that should be communicated when a
particular gene and variant is detected.
(ii) If professional guidelines are not
available, provide a statement that the
professional guidelines are not available
for these specific gene(s) and variant(s).
(C) The specimen type (e.g., saliva,
capillary whole blood).
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
(D) Assay steps and technology used.
(E) Specification of required ancillary
reagents, instrumentation, and
equipment.
(F) Specification of the specimen
collection, processing, storage, and
preparation methods.
(G) Specification of risk mitigation
elements and description of all
additional procedures, methods, and
practices incorporated into the
directions for use that mitigate risks
associated with testing.
(H) Information pertaining to the
probability of test failure (i.e.,
percentage of tests that failed quality
control) based on data from clinical
samples, a description of scenarios in
which a test can fail (i.e., low sample
volume, low DNA concentration, etc.),
how users will be notified of a test
failure, and the nature of followup
actions on a failed test to be taken by the
user and the manufacturer.
(I) Specification of the criteria for test
result interpretation and reporting.
(J) Information that demonstrates the
performance characteristics of the test,
including:
(1) Accuracy of study results for each
claimed specimen type.
(i) Accuracy of the test shall be
evaluated with fresh clinical specimens
collected and processed in a manner
consistent with the test’s instructions
for use. If this is impractical, fresh
clinical samples may be substituted or
supplemented with archived clinical
samples. Archived samples shall have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
been collected previously in accordance
with the instructions for use, stored
appropriately, and randomly selected.
In some limited circumstances, use of
contrived samples or human cell line
samples may also be appropriate and
used as an acceptable alternative. The
contrived or human cell line samples
shall mimic clinical specimens as much
as is feasible and provide an unbiased
evaluation of the device accuracy.
(ii) Accuracy must be evaluated by
comparison to bidirectional Sanger
sequencing or other methods identified
as appropriate by FDA. Performance
criteria for both the comparator method
and the device must be predefined and
appropriate to the device’s intended
use. Detailed study protocols must be
provided.
(iii) Test specimens must include all
genotypes that will be included in the
tests and reports. The number of
samples tested in the accuracy study for
each variant reported must be based on
the variant frequency using either the
minimum numbers of samples
identified in this paragraph or, when
determined appropriate and identified
by FDA, a minimum number of samples
determined using an alternative method.
When appropriate, the same samples
may be used in testing to demonstrate
the accuracy of testing for multiple
genotypes by generating sequence
information at multiple relevant genetic
locations. At least 20 unique samples
representing the wild-type genotype
must be tested. To test samples that are
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51563
heterozygous for the reported variant(s),
common variants (>0.1 percent variant
frequency in the relevant population)
must be tested with at least 20 unique
samples. Rare variants (≤0.1 percent
variant frequency in the relevant
population) must be tested with at least
three unique samples. To test samples
that are homozygous for the reported
variant(s), variants with ≥2 percent
variant frequency in a relevant
population must be tested with at least
20 unique samples. Variants with a
frequency in the relevant population <2
percent and ≥0.5 percent must be tested
with at least 10 unique samples.
Variants with a frequency in the
relevant population <0.5 percent must
be tested with at least three unique
samples. If variants with a frequency of
<0.5 percent are not found within the
relevant population and homozygous
samples are not tested, then the test
results for this homozygous rare variant
must not be reported to the user.
(iv) Information about the accuracy
study shall include the number and type
of samples that were compared to
bidirectional Sanger sequencing or other
methods identified as appropriate by
FDA. This information must either be
reported in tabular format and arranged
by clinically relevant variants or
reported using another method
identified as appropriate by FDA. As an
example, for samples with different
genotypes DD, Dd, and dd, the following
table represents data from the accuracy
study presented in tabular format:
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
51564
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
these estimates as (A4 + B4 + C4)/(NDD
+ NDd + Ndd) and provide a 95 percent
two-sided confidence interval. The
percent of final ‘no calls’ or ‘invalid
calls’ must be clinically acceptable.
(vi) Point estimates of percent
agreement for each genotype must be
calculated as the number of correct calls
for that genotype divided by the number
of samples known to contain that
genotype excluding ‘no calls’ or ‘invalid
calls’. The calculations must be
performed as follows:
ER07NO17.002
device instructions for use, the percent
of final ‘no calls’ or ‘invalid calls’ must
be provided. In the table presenting the
results of the accuracy study, use only
the final results (i.e., after retesting the
initial ‘no calls’ or ‘invalid calls’, if
required according to the instructions
for use). Samples that resulted in a ‘no
call’ or ‘invalid call’ after retesting must
not be included in the final calculations
of agreement. If the percentages of ‘no
calls’ or ‘invalid calls’ for each
comparator output are similar, combine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
ER07NO17.001
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
(v) The accuracy represents the
degrees of agreement between the
device results and the comparator
results. The accuracy must be evaluated
by measuring different percent
agreements (PA) of device results with
the comparator results and percent of
‘no calls’ or ‘invalid calls.’ Calculate the
rate of ‘no calls’ and ‘invalid calls’ for
each comparator output as %Inv(DD) =
A4/NDD, %Inv(Dd) = B4/NDd, %Inv(dd) =
C4/Ndd. If ‘no calls’ or ‘invalid calls’ are
required to be retested according to the
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
51565
appropriate by FDA (see paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(iv) of this section).
(viii) Information must be reported on
the Technical Positive Predictive Value
(TPPV) related to the analytical
(technical) performance of the device for
genotypes in each relevant
subpopulation (e.g., ethnicity, gender,
age, geographical location, etc.). TPPV is
the percentage of individuals with the
genotype truly present among
individuals whose test reports indicate
that this genotype is present. The TPPV
depends on the accuracy measures of
percent agreements and on the
frequency of the genotypes in the
subpopulation being studied. The f(DD)
is the frequency of DD and f(Dd) is the
frequency of Dd in the subpopulation
being studied; TPPV must be calculated
as described in paragraphs
(b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(ix) through (xi) of this
section.
(ix) For variants where the point
estimates of PA(DD|DD), PA(Dd|Dd) and
PA(dd|dd) are less than 100 percent, use
these point estimates in TPPV
calculations.
(x) Point estimates of 100 percent in
the accuracy study may have high
uncertainty about performance of the
test in the population. If these variants
are measured using highly multiplexed
technology, calculate the random error
rate for the overall device. The accuracy
study described in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(J) of this section in those cases
is more to determine that there is no
systematic error in such devices. In
those cases, incorporate that rate in the
estimation of the percent agreements as
calculated in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(vi) of this section and
include it in TPPV calculations.
(xi) The TPPV for subpopulations
with genotype frequencies of f(dd), f(Dd)
and f(DD) = 1¥f(dd)¥f(Dd) in the
subpopulation is calculated as:
(2) Precision and reproducibility data
must be provided using multiple
instruments and multiple operators, on
multiple non-consecutive days, and
using multiple reagent lots. The sample
panel must either include specimens
from the claimed sample type (e.g.,
saliva) representing all genotypes for
each variant (e.g., wild type,
heterozygous, and homozygous) or, if an
alternative panel composition of
specimens is identified by FDA as
appropriate, a panel composed of those
specimens FDA identified as
appropriate. A detailed study protocol
must be created in advance of the study
and must include predetermined
acceptance criteria for performance
results. The percentage of samples that
failed quality control must be indicated
(i.e., the total number of sample
replicates for which a sequence variant
cannot be called (no calls) or that fail
sequencing quality control criteria
divided by the total number of
replicates tested). It must be clearly
documented whether results were
generated from clinical specimens,
contrived samples, or cell lines. The
study results shall report the variants
tested in the study and the number of
replicates for each variant, and what
conditions were tested (i.e., number of
runs, days, instruments, reagent lots,
operators, specimens/type, etc.). Results
must be evaluated and presented in
tabular format and stratified by study
parameter (e.g., by site, instrument(s),
reagent lot, operator, and sample
variant). The study must include all
extraction steps from the claimed
specimen type or matrix, unless a
separate extraction reproducibility
study for the claimed sample type is
performed. If the device is to be used at
more than one laboratory, different
laboratories must be included in the
reproducibility study and
reproducibility across sites must be
evaluated. Any no calls or invalid calls
in the study must be listed as a part of
the precision and reproducibility study
results.
(3) Analytical specificity data: Data
must be provided that evaluates the
effect of potential endogenous and
exogenous interferents on test
performance, including specimen
extraction and variant detection.
Interferents tested must include those
reasonably likely to be potentially
relevant to the sample type used for the
device.
(4) Interfering variant data:
Nucleotide mutations that can interfere
with the technology must be cited and
evaluated. Data must be provided to
demonstrate the effect of the interfering
variant(s) on the performance of the
correct calls. Alternatively, for each
suspected interfering mutation for
which data is not provided
demonstrating the effect of the
interfering variant, the manufacturer
must identify the suspected interfering
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
ER07NO17.003
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
(vii) For percent agreements for DD,
Dd and dd (PA(DD|DD), PA(Dd|Dd) and
PA(dd|dd)) as described in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(vi) of this section, the 95
percent two-sided confidence intervals
must be provided. The accuracy point
estimates for percent agreements for DD,
Dd and dd must be ≥99 percent per
reported variant and overall. Any
variants that have a point estimate for
either PA(DD|DD), PA(Dd|Dd), or
PA(dd|dd) of <99 percent compared to
bidirectional sequencing or other
methods identified as appropriate by
FDA must not be incorporated into test
claims and reports. Accuracy results
generated from clinical specimens
versus contrived samples or cell lines
must be presented separately. Results
must be summarized and presented in
tabular format by sample type and by
genotype or must be reported using
another method identified as
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
51566
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
variants in the labeling and indicate that
the impact that the interfering variants
may have on the assay’s performance
has not been studied by providing a
statement that reads ‘‘It is possible that
the presence of [insert clearly
identifying information for the
suspected interfering variant] in a
sample may interfere with the
performance of this test. However, its
effect on the performance of this test has
not been studied.’’
(5) Analytical sensitivity data: Data
must be provided demonstrating the
minimum amount of DNA that will
enable the test to perform correctly in 95
percent of runs.
(6) Reagent stability: The
manufacturer must evaluate reagent
stability using wild-type, heterozygous,
and homozygous samples. Reagent
stability data must demonstrate that the
reagents maintain the claimed accuracy
and reproducibility. Data supporting
such claims must be provided.
(7) Specimen type and matrix
comparison data: Specimen type and
matrix comparison data must be
generated if more than one specimen
type can be tested with this device,
including failure rates for the different
specimens.
(K) Clinical performance summary.
(1) Information to support the clinical
performance of each variant reported by
the test must be provided.
(2) Manufacturers must organize
information by the specific variant
combination as appropriate (e.g., wild
type, heterozygous, homozygous,
compound heterozygous, hemizygous
genotypes). For each variant
combination, information must be
provided in the clinical performance
section to support clinical performance
for the risk category (e.g., not at risk,
increased risk). For each variant
combination, a summary of key results
must be provided in tabular format or
using another method identified as
appropriate by FDA to include the
appropriate information regarding
variant type, data source, definition of
the target condition (e.g., disease),
clinical criteria for determining whether
the target disease is present or absent,
description of subjects with the target
disease present and target disease absent
(exclusion or inclusion criteria), and
technical method for genotyping. When
available, information on the effect of
the variant on risk must be provided as
the risk of a disease (lifetime risk or
lifetime incidences) for an individual
compared with the general population
risk.
(i) If odds ratios are available, using
information about the genotype
distribution either among individuals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
with the target disease absent, or in the
general population, or information
about the risk variant frequency and
odds ratios, the likelihood ratios for the
corresponding device results along with
95 percent confidence intervals must be
calculated. Using information about
pretest risk (p), an estimate of likelihood
ratio (LR), and a relationship between
post-test risk R as R/(1¥R) = LR·p/
(1¥p), the post-test risk R must be
calculated.
(ii) When available, likelihood ratios
(LR) for different test results must be
presented in a tabular format along with
references to the source data or using
another method identified as
appropriate by FDA as stated in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(K)(2) of this section.
When these values are not directly
available in published literature,
likelihood ratios can be separately
calculated along with the 95 percent
confidence interval with references to
the source data. Note that a minimum
requirement for the presence of the
variant’s effect on the risk is that a
corresponding LR is statistically higher
than 1 (a lower bound of 95 percent
two-sided confidence interval is larger
than 1). It means that the post-test risk
is statistically higher than the pretest
risk (an observed value of the difference
between the post-test and pretest risks).
(L) Materials that explain the main
concepts and terminology used in the
test that includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Definitions: Scientific terms that
are used in the test reports.
(2) Prepurchase page: This page must
contain information that informs the
user about what the test will provide.
This includes, but is not limited to,
variant information, the condition or
disease associated with the variant(s),
professional guideline
recommendations for general genetic
risk testing, the limitations associated
with the test (e.g., test does not detect
all variants related to the disease) and
any precautionary information about the
test the user should be aware of before
purchase. When the test reports the risk
of a life-threatening or irreversibly
debilitating disease or condition for
which there are few or no options to
prevent, treat, or cure the disease, a user
opt-in section must be provided. This
opt-in page must be provided for each
disease that falls into this category and
must provide specific information
relevant to each test result. The opt-in
page must include:
(i) An option to accept or decline to
receive this specific test result;
(ii) Specification of the risk involved
if the user is found to have the specific
genetic test result;
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(iii) Professional guidelines that
recommend when genetic testing for the
associated target condition is or is not
recommended; and
(iv) A recommendation to speak with
a health care professional, genetic
counselor, or equivalent professional
before getting the results of the test.
(3) Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
page: This page must provide
information that is specific for each
variant/disease pair that is reported.
Information provided in this section
must be scientifically valid and
supported by corresponding
publications. The FAQ page must
explain the health condition/disease
being tested, the purpose of the test, the
information the test will and will not
provide, the relevance of race and
ethnicity on the test results, information
about the population to which the
variants in the test is most applicable,
the meaning of the result(s), other risks
factors that contribute to disease,
appropriate followup procedures, how
the results of the test may affect the
user’s family, including children, and
links to resources that provide
additional information.
(M) User comprehension study:
Information on a study that assesses
comprehension of the test process and
results by potential users of the test
must be provided.
(1) The test manufacturer must
provide a genetic risk education module
¨
to naıve user comprehension study
participants prior to their participation
in the user comprehension study. The
module must define terms that are used
in the test reports and explain the
significance of genetic risk reports.
(2) The test manufacturer must
perform pre- and post-test user
comprehension studies. The
comprehension test questions must
include directly evaluating a
representative sample of the material
being presented to the user as described
in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(3) The manufacturer must provide a
justification from a physician and/or
genetic counselor that identifies the
appropriate general and variant-specific
concepts contained within the material
being tested in the user comprehension
study to ensure that all relevant
concepts are incorporated in the study.
(4) The user study must meet the
following criteria:
(i) The study participants must
comprise a statistically sufficient
sample size and demographically
diverse population (determined using
methods such as quota-based sampling)
that is representative of the intended
user population. Furthermore, the study
participants must comprise a diverse
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
range of age and educational levels and
have no prior experience with the test
or its manufacturer. These factors shall
be well defined in the inclusion and
exclusion criteria.
(ii) All sources of bias must be
predefined and accounted for in the
study results with regard to both
responders and non-responders.
(iii) The testing must follow a format
where users have limited time to
complete the studies (such as an onsite
survey format and a one-time visit with
a cap on the maximum amount of time
that a participant has to complete the
tests).
(iv) Users must be randomly assigned
to study arms. Test reports in the user
comprehension study given to users
must define the target condition being
tested and related symptoms, explain
the intended use and limitations of the
test, explain the relevant ethnicities in
regard to the variant tested, explain
genetic health risks and relevance to the
user’s ethnicity, and assess participants’
ability to understand the following
comprehension concepts: The test’s
limitations, purpose, appropriate action,
test results, and other factors that may
have an impact on the test results.
(v) Study participants must be
¨
untrained, be naıve to the test subject of
the study, and be provided the labeling
prior to the start of the user
comprehension study.
(vi) The user comprehension study
must meet the predefined primary
endpoint criteria, including a minimum
of a 90 percent or greater overall
comprehension rate (i.e., selection of the
correct answer) for each comprehension
concept. Other acceptance criteria may
be acceptable depending on the concept
being tested. Meeting or exceeding this
overall comprehension rate
demonstrates that the materials
presented to the user are adequate for
over-the-counter use.
(vii) The analysis of the user
comprehension results must include
results regarding reports that are
provided for each gene/variant/ethnicity
tested, statistical methods used to
analyze all data sets, and completion
rate, non-responder rate, and reasons for
nonresponse/data exclusion. A
summary table of comprehension rates
regarding comprehension concepts (e.g.,
purpose of test, test results, test
limitations, ethnicity relevance for the
test results, etc.) for each study report
must be included.
(4) The intended use of the device
must not include the following
indications for use:
(i) Prenatal testing;
(ii) Determining predisposition for
cancer where the result of the test may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Nov 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
lead to prophylactic screening,
confirmatory procedures, or treatments
that may incur morbidity or mortality to
the patient;
(iii) Assessing the presence of genetic
variants that impact the metabolism,
exposure, response, risk of adverse
events, dosing, or mechanisms of
prescription or over-the-counter
medications; or
(iv) Assessing the presence of
deterministic autosomal dominant
variants.
Dated: November 1, 2017.
Lauren Silvis,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2017–24159 Filed 11–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA–2015–N–3455]
Medical Devices; Exemption From
Premarket Notification; Class II
Devices; Autosomal Recessive Carrier
Screening Gene Mutation Detection
System
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or Agency) is
publishing an order to exempt
autosomal recessive carrier screening
gene mutation detection systems from
the premarket notification requirements,
subject to certain limitations. This
exemption from 510(k), subject to
certain limitations, is immediately in
effect for autosomal recessive carrier
screening gene mutation detection
systems. This exemption will decrease
regulatory burdens on the medical
device industry and will eliminate
private costs and expenditures required
to comply with certain Federal
regulations. FDA is also amending the
codified language for the autosomal
recessive carrier screening gene
mutation detection system devices
classification regulation to reflect this
final determination.
DATES: This order is effective November
7, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5866.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51567
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory Background
Section 510(k) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and the implementing
regulations, 21 CFR part 807 subpart E,
require persons who intend to market a
device to submit and obtain FDA
clearance of a premarket notification
(510(k)) containing information that
allows FDA to determine whether the
new device is ‘‘substantially equivalent’’
within the meaning of section 513(i) of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a
legally marketed device that does not
require premarket approval.
On December 13, 2016, the 21st
Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114–255)
(Cures Act) was signed into law. Section
3054 of the Cures Act amended section
510(m) of the FD&C Act. As amended,
section 510(m)(2) provides that, 1
calendar day after the date of
publication of the final list under
paragraph (1)(B), FDA may exempt a
class II device from the requirement to
submit a report under section 510(k) of
the FD&C Act, upon its own initiative or
a petition of an interested person, if
FDA determines that a 510(k) is not
necessary to provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of the device. This section requires FDA
to publish in the Federal Register a
notice of intent to exempt a device, or
of the petition, and to provide a 60calendar-day comment period. Within
120 days of publication of such notice,
FDA must publish an order in the
Federal Register that sets forth its final
determination regarding the exemption
of the device that was the subject of the
notice. If FDA fails to respond to a
petition under this section within 180
days of receiving it, the petition shall be
deemed granted.
II. Criteria for Exemption
There are a number of factors FDA
may consider to determine whether a
510(k) is necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of a class II device. These
factors are discussed in the January 21,
1998, Federal Register notice (63 FR
3142) and subsequently in the guidance
the Agency issued on February 19, 1998,
entitled ‘‘Procedures for Class II Device
Exemptions from Premarket
Notification, Guidance for Industry and
CDRH Staff’’ (referred to herein as the
Class II 510(k) Exemption Guidance)
(Ref. 1).
III. Device Description
On February 19, 2015, FDA
completed its review of a De Novo
request for classification of the 23andMe
E:\FR\FM\07NOR1.SGM
07NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51560-51567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24159]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4341]
Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices;
Classification of the Genetic Health Risk Assessment System
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
classifying the genetic health risk assessment system into class II
(special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type
are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language
for the genetic health risk assessment system's classification. We are
taking this action because we have determined that classifying the
device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this
action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative
devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
DATES: This order is effective November 7, 2017. The classification was
applicable on April 6, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5866,
steven.tjoe@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Upon request, FDA has classified the genetic health risk assessment
system as class II (special controls), which we have determined will
provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In
addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to
beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by
placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class
III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law
and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by
the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution
before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains
within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA
takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see section
513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
(21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1))). We refer to these devices as ``postamendments
devices'' because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the
date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which
amended the FD&C Act.
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to
classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an
order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section
513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require
premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially
equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket
notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807 (21
U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
FDA may also classify a device through ``De Novo'' classification,
a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification
(Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by
adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may
utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device
that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from
FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of
the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section
513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k)
and then a request for classification, if the person determines that
there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination
of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required
to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The
classification will be according to the criteria under section
513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within
class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial
classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients'
access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory
burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De
Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of
that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a
result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request
or PMA in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21
U.S.C. 360c(i), defining ``substantial equivalence''). Instead,
sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to
market their device.
II. De Novo Classification
On June 28, 2016, 23andMe, Inc. submitted a request for De Novo
classification of the 23andMe Personal Genome Service (PGS) Test. FDA
reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria
for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves
are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special
controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the
information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can
be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls.
FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the
general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
[[Page 51561]]
Therefore, on April 6, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester
classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the
classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.5950. We have named
the generic type of device genetic health risk assessment system, and
it is identified as a qualitative in vitro molecular diagnostic system
used for detecting variants in genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
isolated from human specimens that will provide information to users
about their genetic risk of developing a disease to inform lifestyle
choices and/or conversations with a health care professional. This
assessment system is for over-the-counter use. This device does not
determine the person's overall risk of developing a disease.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated
specifically with this type of device and the measures required to
mitigate these risks in table 1.
Table 1--Genetic Health Risk Assessment System Risks and Mitigation
Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified risk Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect understanding of the device General controls, Special
and test system. control (1) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(1)), Special
control (3) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(3)), and Special
control (4) (21 CFR 866.5950
(b)(4)).
Incorrect test results (false General controls, Special
positives, false negatives). control (2) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(2)), and Special
control (3) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(3)).
Incorrect interpretation of test General controls, Special
results. control (1) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(1)), Special
control (3) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(3)), and Special
control (4) (21 CFR
866.5950(b)(4)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the
general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall
within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in
class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in
this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the
regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket
notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
Section 510(m)(2) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a
class II device from the premarket notification requirements under
section 510(k) if, after notice of our intent to exempt and
consideration of comments, we determine by order that premarket
notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness of the device. We believe this may be such a device.
The notice of intent to exempt the device from premarket notification
requirements is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
III. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final order establishes special controls that refer to
previously approved collections of information found in other FDA
regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in
part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections
of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
866 is amended as follows:
PART 866--IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 866 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
0
2. Add Sec. 866.5950 to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 866.5950 Genetic health risk assessment system.
(a) Identification. A genetic health risk assessment system is a
qualitative in vitro molecular diagnostic system used for detecting
variants in genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) isolated from human
specimens that will provide information to users about their genetic
risk of developing a disease to inform lifestyle choices and/or
conversations with a health care professional. This assessment system
is for over-the-counter use. This device does not determine the
person's overall risk of developing a disease.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
controls for this device are:
(1) The 21 CFR 809.10 compliant labeling and any prepurchase page
and test report generated, unless otherwise specified, must include:
(i) A section addressed to users with the following information:
(A) The limiting statement explaining that this test provides
genetic risk information based on assessment of specific genetic
variants but does not report on a user's entire genetic profile. This
test [does not/may not, as appropriate] detect all genetic variants
related to a given disease, and the absence of a variant tested does
not rule out the presence of other genetic variants that may be related
to the disease.
(B) The limiting statement explaining that other companies offering
a genetic risk test may be detecting different genetic variants for the
same disease, so the user may get different results using a test from a
different company.
(C) The limiting statement explaining that other factors such as
environmental and lifestyle risk factors may affect the risk of
developing a given disease.
(D) The limiting statement explaining that some people may feel
anxious about getting genetic test health results. This is normal. If
the potential user feels very anxious, such user should speak to his or
her doctor or other health care professional prior to collection of a
sample for testing. This test is not a substitute for visits to a
doctor or other health care professional. Users should consult with
their doctor or other health
[[Page 51562]]
care professional if they have any questions or concerns about the
results of their test or their current state of health.
(E) Information about how to obtain access to a genetic counselor,
board-certified clinical molecular geneticist, or equivalent health
care professional about the results of a user's test.
(F) The limiting statement explaining that this test is not
intended to diagnose a disease, tell you anything about your current
state of health, or be used to make medical decisions, including
whether or not you should take a medication or how much of a medication
you should take.
(G) A limiting statement explaining that the laboratory may not be
able to process a sample, and a description of the next steps to be
taken by the manufacturer and/or the customer, as applicable.
(ii) A section in your 21 CFR 809.10 labeling and any test report
generated that is for health care professionals who may receive the
test results from their patients with the following information:
(A) The limiting statement explaining that this test is not
intended to diagnose a disease, determine medical treatment, or tell
the user anything about their current state of health.
(B) The limiting statement explaining that this test is intended to
provide users with their genetic information to inform lifestyle
decisions and conversations with their doctor or other health care
professional.
(C) The limiting statement explaining that any diagnostic or
treatment decisions should be based on testing and/or other information
that you determine to be appropriate for your patient.
(2) The genetic test must use a sample collection device that is
FDA-cleared, -approved, or -classified as 510(k) exempt, with an
indication for in vitro diagnostic use in over-the-counter DNA testing.
(3) The device's labeling must include a hyperlink to the
manufacturer's public Web site where the manufacturer shall make the
information identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section publicly
available. The manufacturer's home page, as well as the primary part of
the manufacturer's Web site that discusses the device, must provide a
hyperlink to the Web page containing this information and must allow
unrestricted viewing access. If the device can be purchased from the
Web site or testing using the device can be ordered from the Web site,
the same information must be found on the Web page for ordering the
device or provided in a publicly accessible hyperlink on the Web page
for ordering the device. Any changes to the device that could
significantly affect safety or effectiveness would require new data or
information in support of such changes, which would also have to be
posted on the manufacturer's Web site. The information must include:
(i) An index of the material being provided to meet the
requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and its location.
(ii) A section that highlights summary information that allows the
user to understand how the test works and how to interpret the results
of the test. This section must, at a minimum, be written in plain
language understandable to a lay user and include:
(A) Consistent explanations of the risk of disease associated with
all variants included in the test. If there are different categories of
risk, the manufacturer must provide literature references that support
the different risk categories. If there will be multiple test reports
and multiple variants, the risk categories must be defined similarly
among them. For example, ``increased risk'' must be defined similarly
between different test reports and different variant combinations.
(B) Clear context for the user to understand the context in which
the cited clinical performance data support the risk reported. This
includes, but is not limited to, any risks that are influenced by
ethnicity, age, gender, environment, and lifestyle choices.
(C) Materials that explain the main concepts and terminology used
in the test that include:
(1) Definitions: Scientific terms that are used in the test
reports.
(2) Prepurchase page: This page must contain information that
informs the user about what information the test will provide. This
includes, but is not limited to, variant information, the condition or
disease associated with the variant(s), professional guideline
recommendations for general genetic risk testing, the limitations
associated with the test (e.g., test does not detect all variants
related to the disease) and any precautionary information about the
test the user should be aware of before purchase. When the test reports
the risk of a life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating disease or
condition for which there are few or no options to prevent, treat, or
cure the disease, a user opt-in section must be provided. This opt-in
page must be provided for each disease that falls into this category
and must provide specific information relevant to each test result. The
opt-in page must include:
(i) An option to accept or decline to receive this specific test
result;
(ii) Specification of the risk involved if the user is found to
have the specific genetic test result;
(iii) Professional guidelines that recommend when genetic testing
for the associated target condition is or is not recommended; and
(iv) A recommendation to speak with a health care professional,
genetic counselor, or equivalent professional before getting the
results of the test.
(3) Frequently asked questions (FAQ) page: This page must provide
information that is specific for each variant/disease pair that is
reported. Information provided in this section must be scientifically
valid and supported by corresponding publications. The FAQ page must
explain the health condition/disease being tested, the purpose of the
test, the information the test will and will not provide, the relevance
of race and ethnicity to the test results, information about the
population to which the variants in the test is most applicable, the
meaning of the result(s), other risk factors that contribute to
disease, appropriate followup procedures, how the results of the test
may affect the user's family, including children, and links to
resources that provide additional information.
(iii) A technical information section containing the following
information:
(A) Gene(s) and variant(s) the test detects using standardized
nomenclature, Human Genome Organization nomenclature and coordinates as
well as Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Database (dbSNP) reference SNP
numbers (rs#).
(B) Scientifically established disease-risk association of each
variant detected and reported by the test. This risk association
information must include:
(1) Genotype-phenotype information for the reported variants.
(2) Table of expected frequency and risks of developing the disease
in relevant ethnic populations and the general population.
(3) A statement about the current professional guidelines for
testing these specific gene(s) and variant(s).
(i) If professional guidelines are available, provide the
recommendations in the professional guideline for the gene, variant,
and disease, for when genetic testing should or should not be
performed, and cautionary information that should be communicated when
a particular gene and variant is detected.
(ii) If professional guidelines are not available, provide a
statement that the professional guidelines are not available for these
specific gene(s) and variant(s).
(C) The specimen type (e.g., saliva, capillary whole blood).
[[Page 51563]]
(D) Assay steps and technology used.
(E) Specification of required ancillary reagents, instrumentation,
and equipment.
(F) Specification of the specimen collection, processing, storage,
and preparation methods.
(G) Specification of risk mitigation elements and description of
all additional procedures, methods, and practices incorporated into the
directions for use that mitigate risks associated with testing.
(H) Information pertaining to the probability of test failure
(i.e., percentage of tests that failed quality control) based on data
from clinical samples, a description of scenarios in which a test can
fail (i.e., low sample volume, low DNA concentration, etc.), how users
will be notified of a test failure, and the nature of followup actions
on a failed test to be taken by the user and the manufacturer.
(I) Specification of the criteria for test result interpretation
and reporting.
(J) Information that demonstrates the performance characteristics
of the test, including:
(1) Accuracy of study results for each claimed specimen type.
(i) Accuracy of the test shall be evaluated with fresh clinical
specimens collected and processed in a manner consistent with the
test's instructions for use. If this is impractical, fresh clinical
samples may be substituted or supplemented with archived clinical
samples. Archived samples shall have been collected previously in
accordance with the instructions for use, stored appropriately, and
randomly selected. In some limited circumstances, use of contrived
samples or human cell line samples may also be appropriate and used as
an acceptable alternative. The contrived or human cell line samples
shall mimic clinical specimens as much as is feasible and provide an
unbiased evaluation of the device accuracy.
(ii) Accuracy must be evaluated by comparison to bidirectional
Sanger sequencing or other methods identified as appropriate by FDA.
Performance criteria for both the comparator method and the device must
be predefined and appropriate to the device's intended use. Detailed
study protocols must be provided.
(iii) Test specimens must include all genotypes that will be
included in the tests and reports. The number of samples tested in the
accuracy study for each variant reported must be based on the variant
frequency using either the minimum numbers of samples identified in
this paragraph or, when determined appropriate and identified by FDA, a
minimum number of samples determined using an alternative method. When
appropriate, the same samples may be used in testing to demonstrate the
accuracy of testing for multiple genotypes by generating sequence
information at multiple relevant genetic locations. At least 20 unique
samples representing the wild-type genotype must be tested. To test
samples that are heterozygous for the reported variant(s), common
variants (>0.1 percent variant frequency in the relevant population)
must be tested with at least 20 unique samples. Rare variants (<=0.1
percent variant frequency in the relevant population) must be tested
with at least three unique samples. To test samples that are homozygous
for the reported variant(s), variants with >=2 percent variant
frequency in a relevant population must be tested with at least 20
unique samples. Variants with a frequency in the relevant population <2
percent and >=0.5 percent must be tested with at least 10 unique
samples. Variants with a frequency in the relevant population <0.5
percent must be tested with at least three unique samples. If variants
with a frequency of <0.5 percent are not found within the relevant
population and homozygous samples are not tested, then the test results
for this homozygous rare variant must not be reported to the user.
(iv) Information about the accuracy study shall include the number
and type of samples that were compared to bidirectional Sanger
sequencing or other methods identified as appropriate by FDA. This
information must either be reported in tabular format and arranged by
clinically relevant variants or reported using another method
identified as appropriate by FDA. As an example, for samples with
different genotypes DD, Dd, and dd, the following table represents data
from the accuracy study presented in tabular format:
[[Page 51564]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07NO17.001
(v) The accuracy represents the degrees of agreement between the
device results and the comparator results. The accuracy must be
evaluated by measuring different percent agreements (PA) of device
results with the comparator results and percent of `no calls' or
`invalid calls.' Calculate the rate of `no calls' and `invalid calls'
for each comparator output as %Inv(DD) = A4/NDD,
%Inv(Dd) = B4/NDd, %Inv(dd) = C4/
Ndd. If `no calls' or `invalid calls' are required to be
retested according to the device instructions for use, the percent of
final `no calls' or `invalid calls' must be provided. In the table
presenting the results of the accuracy study, use only the final
results (i.e., after retesting the initial `no calls' or `invalid
calls', if required according to the instructions for use). Samples
that resulted in a `no call' or `invalid call' after retesting must not
be included in the final calculations of agreement. If the percentages
of `no calls' or `invalid calls' for each comparator output are
similar, combine these estimates as (A4 + B4 +
C4)/(NDD + NDd + Ndd) and
provide a 95 percent two-sided confidence interval. The percent of
final `no calls' or `invalid calls' must be clinically acceptable.
(vi) Point estimates of percent agreement for each genotype must be
calculated as the number of correct calls for that genotype divided by
the number of samples known to contain that genotype excluding `no
calls' or `invalid calls'. The calculations must be performed as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07NO17.002
[[Page 51565]]
(vii) For percent agreements for DD, Dd and dd (PA(DD[bond]DD),
PA(Dd[bond]Dd) and PA(dd[bond]dd)) as described in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(vi) of this section, the 95 percent two-sided
confidence intervals must be provided. The accuracy point estimates for
percent agreements for DD, Dd and dd must be >=99 percent per reported
variant and overall. Any variants that have a point estimate for either
PA(DD[bond]DD), PA(Dd[bond]Dd), or PA(dd[bond]dd) of <99 percent
compared to bidirectional sequencing or other methods identified as
appropriate by FDA must not be incorporated into test claims and
reports. Accuracy results generated from clinical specimens versus
contrived samples or cell lines must be presented separately. Results
must be summarized and presented in tabular format by sample type and
by genotype or must be reported using another method identified as
appropriate by FDA (see paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(iv) of this
section).
(viii) Information must be reported on the Technical Positive
Predictive Value (TPPV) related to the analytical (technical)
performance of the device for genotypes in each relevant subpopulation
(e.g., ethnicity, gender, age, geographical location, etc.). TPPV is
the percentage of individuals with the genotype truly present among
individuals whose test reports indicate that this genotype is present.
The TPPV depends on the accuracy measures of percent agreements and on
the frequency of the genotypes in the subpopulation being studied. The
f(DD) is the frequency of DD and f(Dd) is the frequency of Dd in the
subpopulation being studied; TPPV must be calculated as described in
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(ix) through (xi) of this section.
(ix) For variants where the point estimates of PA(DD[bond]DD),
PA(Dd[bond]Dd) and PA(dd[bond]dd) are less than 100 percent, use these
point estimates in TPPV calculations.
(x) Point estimates of 100 percent in the accuracy study may have
high uncertainty about performance of the test in the population. If
these variants are measured using highly multiplexed technology,
calculate the random error rate for the overall device. The accuracy
study described in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(J) of this section in those
cases is more to determine that there is no systematic error in such
devices. In those cases, incorporate that rate in the estimation of the
percent agreements as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(J)(1)(vi) of
this section and include it in TPPV calculations.
(xi) The TPPV for subpopulations with genotype frequencies of
f(dd), f(Dd) and f(DD) = 1-f(dd)-f(Dd) in the subpopulation is
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07NO17.003
(2) Precision and reproducibility data must be provided using
multiple instruments and multiple operators, on multiple non-
consecutive days, and using multiple reagent lots. The sample panel
must either include specimens from the claimed sample type (e.g.,
saliva) representing all genotypes for each variant (e.g., wild type,
heterozygous, and homozygous) or, if an alternative panel composition
of specimens is identified by FDA as appropriate, a panel composed of
those specimens FDA identified as appropriate. A detailed study
protocol must be created in advance of the study and must include
predetermined acceptance criteria for performance results. The
percentage of samples that failed quality control must be indicated
(i.e., the total number of sample replicates for which a sequence
variant cannot be called (no calls) or that fail sequencing quality
control criteria divided by the total number of replicates tested). It
must be clearly documented whether results were generated from clinical
specimens, contrived samples, or cell lines. The study results shall
report the variants tested in the study and the number of replicates
for each variant, and what conditions were tested (i.e., number of
runs, days, instruments, reagent lots, operators, specimens/type,
etc.). Results must be evaluated and presented in tabular format and
stratified by study parameter (e.g., by site, instrument(s), reagent
lot, operator, and sample variant). The study must include all
extraction steps from the claimed specimen type or matrix, unless a
separate extraction reproducibility study for the claimed sample type
is performed. If the device is to be used at more than one laboratory,
different laboratories must be included in the reproducibility study
and reproducibility across sites must be evaluated. Any no calls or
invalid calls in the study must be listed as a part of the precision
and reproducibility study results.
(3) Analytical specificity data: Data must be provided that
evaluates the effect of potential endogenous and exogenous interferents
on test performance, including specimen extraction and variant
detection. Interferents tested must include those reasonably likely to
be potentially relevant to the sample type used for the device.
(4) Interfering variant data: Nucleotide mutations that can
interfere with the technology must be cited and evaluated. Data must be
provided to demonstrate the effect of the interfering variant(s) on the
performance of the correct calls. Alternatively, for each suspected
interfering mutation for which data is not provided demonstrating the
effect of the interfering variant, the manufacturer must identify the
suspected interfering
[[Page 51566]]
variants in the labeling and indicate that the impact that the
interfering variants may have on the assay's performance has not been
studied by providing a statement that reads ``It is possible that the
presence of [insert clearly identifying information for the suspected
interfering variant] in a sample may interfere with the performance of
this test. However, its effect on the performance of this test has not
been studied.''
(5) Analytical sensitivity data: Data must be provided
demonstrating the minimum amount of DNA that will enable the test to
perform correctly in 95 percent of runs.
(6) Reagent stability: The manufacturer must evaluate reagent
stability using wild-type, heterozygous, and homozygous samples.
Reagent stability data must demonstrate that the reagents maintain the
claimed accuracy and reproducibility. Data supporting such claims must
be provided.
(7) Specimen type and matrix comparison data: Specimen type and
matrix comparison data must be generated if more than one specimen type
can be tested with this device, including failure rates for the
different specimens.
(K) Clinical performance summary.
(1) Information to support the clinical performance of each variant
reported by the test must be provided.
(2) Manufacturers must organize information by the specific variant
combination as appropriate (e.g., wild type, heterozygous, homozygous,
compound heterozygous, hemizygous genotypes). For each variant
combination, information must be provided in the clinical performance
section to support clinical performance for the risk category (e.g.,
not at risk, increased risk). For each variant combination, a summary
of key results must be provided in tabular format or using another
method identified as appropriate by FDA to include the appropriate
information regarding variant type, data source, definition of the
target condition (e.g., disease), clinical criteria for determining
whether the target disease is present or absent, description of
subjects with the target disease present and target disease absent
(exclusion or inclusion criteria), and technical method for genotyping.
When available, information on the effect of the variant on risk must
be provided as the risk of a disease (lifetime risk or lifetime
incidences) for an individual compared with the general population
risk.
(i) If odds ratios are available, using information about the
genotype distribution either among individuals with the target disease
absent, or in the general population, or information about the risk
variant frequency and odds ratios, the likelihood ratios for the
corresponding device results along with 95 percent confidence intervals
must be calculated. Using information about pretest risk ([pi]), an
estimate of likelihood ratio (LR), and a relationship between post-test
risk R as R/(1-R) = LR[middot][pi]/(1-[pi]), the post-test risk R must
be calculated.
(ii) When available, likelihood ratios (LR) for different test
results must be presented in a tabular format along with references to
the source data or using another method identified as appropriate by
FDA as stated in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(K)(2) of this section. When
these values are not directly available in published literature,
likelihood ratios can be separately calculated along with the 95
percent confidence interval with references to the source data. Note
that a minimum requirement for the presence of the variant's effect on
the risk is that a corresponding LR is statistically higher than 1 (a
lower bound of 95 percent two-sided confidence interval is larger than
1). It means that the post-test risk is statistically higher than the
pretest risk (an observed value of the difference between the post-test
and pretest risks).
(L) Materials that explain the main concepts and terminology used
in the test that includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Definitions: Scientific terms that are used in the test
reports.
(2) Prepurchase page: This page must contain information that
informs the user about what the test will provide. This includes, but
is not limited to, variant information, the condition or disease
associated with the variant(s), professional guideline recommendations
for general genetic risk testing, the limitations associated with the
test (e.g., test does not detect all variants related to the disease)
and any precautionary information about the test the user should be
aware of before purchase. When the test reports the risk of a life-
threatening or irreversibly debilitating disease or condition for which
there are few or no options to prevent, treat, or cure the disease, a
user opt-in section must be provided. This opt-in page must be provided
for each disease that falls into this category and must provide
specific information relevant to each test result. The opt-in page must
include:
(i) An option to accept or decline to receive this specific test
result;
(ii) Specification of the risk involved if the user is found to
have the specific genetic test result;
(iii) Professional guidelines that recommend when genetic testing
for the associated target condition is or is not recommended; and
(iv) A recommendation to speak with a health care professional,
genetic counselor, or equivalent professional before getting the
results of the test.
(3) Frequently asked questions (FAQ) page: This page must provide
information that is specific for each variant/disease pair that is
reported. Information provided in this section must be scientifically
valid and supported by corresponding publications. The FAQ page must
explain the health condition/disease being tested, the purpose of the
test, the information the test will and will not provide, the relevance
of race and ethnicity on the test results, information about the
population to which the variants in the test is most applicable, the
meaning of the result(s), other risks factors that contribute to
disease, appropriate followup procedures, how the results of the test
may affect the user's family, including children, and links to
resources that provide additional information.
(M) User comprehension study: Information on a study that assesses
comprehension of the test process and results by potential users of the
test must be provided.
(1) The test manufacturer must provide a genetic risk education
module to na[iuml]ve user comprehension study participants prior to
their participation in the user comprehension study. The module must
define terms that are used in the test reports and explain the
significance of genetic risk reports.
(2) The test manufacturer must perform pre- and post-test user
comprehension studies. The comprehension test questions must include
directly evaluating a representative sample of the material being
presented to the user as described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(3) The manufacturer must provide a justification from a physician
and/or genetic counselor that identifies the appropriate general and
variant-specific concepts contained within the material being tested in
the user comprehension study to ensure that all relevant concepts are
incorporated in the study.
(4) The user study must meet the following criteria:
(i) The study participants must comprise a statistically sufficient
sample size and demographically diverse population (determined using
methods such as quota-based sampling) that is representative of the
intended user population. Furthermore, the study participants must
comprise a diverse
[[Page 51567]]
range of age and educational levels and have no prior experience with
the test or its manufacturer. These factors shall be well defined in
the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
(ii) All sources of bias must be predefined and accounted for in
the study results with regard to both responders and non-responders.
(iii) The testing must follow a format where users have limited
time to complete the studies (such as an onsite survey format and a
one-time visit with a cap on the maximum amount of time that a
participant has to complete the tests).
(iv) Users must be randomly assigned to study arms. Test reports in
the user comprehension study given to users must define the target
condition being tested and related symptoms, explain the intended use
and limitations of the test, explain the relevant ethnicities in regard
to the variant tested, explain genetic health risks and relevance to
the user's ethnicity, and assess participants' ability to understand
the following comprehension concepts: The test's limitations, purpose,
appropriate action, test results, and other factors that may have an
impact on the test results.
(v) Study participants must be untrained, be na[iuml]ve to the test
subject of the study, and be provided the labeling prior to the start
of the user comprehension study.
(vi) The user comprehension study must meet the predefined primary
endpoint criteria, including a minimum of a 90 percent or greater
overall comprehension rate (i.e., selection of the correct answer) for
each comprehension concept. Other acceptance criteria may be acceptable
depending on the concept being tested. Meeting or exceeding this
overall comprehension rate demonstrates that the materials presented to
the user are adequate for over-the-counter use.
(vii) The analysis of the user comprehension results must include
results regarding reports that are provided for each gene/variant/
ethnicity tested, statistical methods used to analyze all data sets,
and completion rate, non-responder rate, and reasons for nonresponse/
data exclusion. A summary table of comprehension rates regarding
comprehension concepts (e.g., purpose of test, test results, test
limitations, ethnicity relevance for the test results, etc.) for each
study report must be included.
(4) The intended use of the device must not include the following
indications for use:
(i) Prenatal testing;
(ii) Determining predisposition for cancer where the result of the
test may lead to prophylactic screening, confirmatory procedures, or
treatments that may incur morbidity or mortality to the patient;
(iii) Assessing the presence of genetic variants that impact the
metabolism, exposure, response, risk of adverse events, dosing, or
mechanisms of prescription or over-the-counter medications; or
(iv) Assessing the presence of deterministic autosomal dominant
variants.
Dated: November 1, 2017.
Lauren Silvis,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2017-24159 Filed 11-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P