Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Viral Load Monitoring Tests, 66545-66549 [2022-23868]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
BETTI, TX
MARCS, TX
SEEDS, TX
LDRET, TX
KEEDS, TX
Scholes, TX (VUH)
Sabine Pass, TX (SBI)
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 28,
2022.
Mark E. Gauch,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022–23852 Filed 11–3–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA–2020–N–2297]
Microbiology Devices; Reclassification
of Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Viral Load Monitoring Tests
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA, the Agency, or
we) is issuing a final order to reclassify
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
viral load monitoring tests,
postamendments class III devices with
the product code MZF, into class II
(special controls), subject to premarket
notification. Through this final order,
FDA is also adding a new device
classification regulation along with
special controls that are necessary to
provide a reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness for this device type.
The final order reclassifies this device
type from class III (premarket approval)
to class II (special controls) and will
reduce the regulatory burdens
associated with these devices because
manufacturers will no longer be
required to submit a premarket approval
application (PMA) for this device type
but can instead submit a less
burdensome premarket notification
(510(k)) and receive clearance before
marketing their device.
DATES: This order is effective December
5, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Myrna Hanna, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Review, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 72, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 240–402–7911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Nov 03, 2022
Jkt 259001
FIX
FIX
WP
WP
WP
VOR/DME
VOR/DME
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
29°57′54.97″
29°53′52.04″
29°39′31.94″
29°39′44.93″
29°21′59.49″
29°16′09.60″
29°41′12.19″
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
098°03′23.98″
097°51′40.70″
097°14′58.66″
096°19′00.96″
095°36′48.98″
094°52′03.81″
094°02′16.72″
I. Background—Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the
Medical Device Amendments of 1976
(the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94–
295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101–629), the Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act
of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–115), the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act
of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–250), the Medical
Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub.
L. 108–214), the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110–85), and the Food and
Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144),
among other amendments, establishes a
comprehensive system for the regulation
of medical devices intended for human
use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360c) established three categories
(classes) of devices, reflecting the
regulatory controls needed to provide
reasonable assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of
devices are class I (general controls),
class II (general controls and special
controls), and class III (general controls
and premarket approval).
Section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act
defines the three classes of devices.
Class I devices are those devices for
which the general controls of the FD&C
Act (controls authorized by or under
sections 501, 502, 510, 516, 518, 519, or
520 (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360, 360f, 360h,
360i, or 360j) or any combination of
such sections) are sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness; or those devices for which
insufficient information exists to
determine that general controls are
sufficient to provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness or
to establish special controls to provide
such assurance, but because the devices
are not purported or represented to be
for a use in supporting or sustaining
human life or for a use which is of
substantial importance in preventing
impairment of human health, and do
not present a potential unreasonable
risk of illness or injury, are to be
regulated by general controls (section
513(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act). Class II
devices are those devices for which
general controls by themselves are
insufficient to provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness
and for which there is sufficient
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66545
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
information to establish special controls
to provide such assurance, including the
promulgation of performance standards,
postmarket surveillance, patient
registries, development and
dissemination of guidelines,
recommendations, and other
appropriate actions the Agency deems
necessary to provide such assurance
(section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Class III devices are those devices for
which insufficient information exists to
determine that general controls and
special controls would provide a
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, and are purported or
represented to be for a use in supporting
or sustaining human life or for a use
which is of substantial importance in
preventing impairment of human
health, or present a potential
unreasonable risk of illness or injury
(section 513(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act).
Devices that were not in commercial
distribution prior to May 28, 1976
(generally referred to as
postamendments devices) are
automatically classified by section
513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into class III
without any FDA rulemaking process.
Those devices remain in class III and
require premarket approval unless, and
until: (1) FDA reclassifies the device
into class I or class II, or (2) FDA issues
an order finding the device to be
substantially equivalent, in accordance
with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to
a predicate device that does not require
premarket approval. FDA determines
whether new devices are substantially
equivalent to predicate devices by
means of premarket notification
procedures in section 510(k) of the
FD&C Act and part 807 (21 CFR part
807), subpart E, of the regulations.
A postamendments device that has
been initially classified in class III
under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act
may be reclassified into class I or II
under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act.
Section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA, acting by
administrative order, can reclassify the
device into class I or class II on its own
initiative, or in response to a petition
from the manufacturer or importer of
the device. To change the classification
of the device, the proposed new class
must have sufficient regulatory controls
to provide a reasonable assurance of the
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
66546
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use.
In the Federal Register of November
24, 2021 (86 FR 66982), FDA published
a proposed order to reclassify HIV viral
load monitoring tests from class III to
class II (special controls), subject to
premarket notification. The comment
period on the proposed order closed on
January 24, 2022.
II. Comments on the Proposed Order
In response to the November 24, 2021,
proposed order, FDA received three
comments (two comments from public
health organizations and one comment
from a device manufacturer) by the
close of the comment period, each
containing one or more comments on
one or more issues. We describe and
respond to the comments in this section
of the document. The order of response
to the commenters is purely for
organizational purposes and does not
signify the comment’s value or
importance nor the order in which the
comments were received.
(Comment 1) All three commenters
expressed general support for the
proposed reclassification and proposed
special controls.
(Response 1) We acknowledge and
appreciate the supportive comments. In
this final order, we are reclassifying HIV
viral load monitoring tests into class II
and establishing the special controls
published in the proposed order (86 FR
66982) without modifications except for
minor editorial changes. See Section III,
below, for a summary of the final order.
(Comment 2) One commenter
requested that FDA provide more detail
regarding the application in various
analytical studies of the proposed
requirement under § 866.3958(b)(2)(iii)
(21 CFR 866.3958(b)(2)(iii)) that
‘‘[s]amples selected for use in analytical
studies or used to prepare samples for
use in analytical studies must be from
subjects with clinically relevant
genotypes circulating in the United
States.’’
(Response 2) FDA does not agree that
additional detail is necessary to describe
the requirement under
§ 866.3958(b)(2)(iii). The requirement to
use or prepare samples from subjects
with clinically relevant genotypes
circulating in the United States is
intended to ensure that the device will
detect HIV genotypes that are of clinical
concern at the time the device is
cleared. How this requirement should
be implemented for a particular
analytical study would depend on other
details regarding study design, the
specific device at issue, and the
currently circulating genotypes in the
United States. Therefore, it is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Nov 03, 2022
Jkt 259001
practical to describe how this
requirement would apply for all future
analytical studies of HIV viral load
monitoring tests in this final order. If
the developer of an HIV viral load
monitoring test seeks feedback about the
design of an analytical study specific to
the developer’s device, such feedback
can be provided through the Qsubmission program.1
(Comment 3) One commenter
addressed proposed § 866.3958(b)(2)(v)
and agreed with the requirement that
‘‘[s]amples tested to demonstrate
analytical specificity must include
appropriate numbers and types of
samples from patients with underlying
illness and infection. . . .’’ With
respect to the requirement under
proposed § 866.3958(b)(2)(v) that
samples tested to demonstrate analytical
specificity ‘‘include appropriate
numbers and types of samples . . . from
patients with potential interfering
substances[,]’’ the commenter suggested
that there be an option to test the effect
of specific interfering substances ‘‘in
accordance to [sic] CLSI EP07—
Interference Testing in Clinical
Chemistry; Ed 3. Approved Guideline.’’
The commenter added that, ‘‘[i]n this
case both HIV–1 positive and HIV–1
negative specimens would be spiked
with each potentially interfering
substance (endogenous and exogenous)
and tested in the investigational
device.’’
(Response 3) We agree with the
comment that in some circumstances, a
combination of clinical and spiked
samples is appropriate based on the
study goals and design, as discussed in
EP07. The special control provision at
§ 866.3958(b)(2)(v) does not preclude
this possibility. FDA believes that
studies conducted to meet the
requirements under § 866.3958(b)(2)(v)
should use clinical samples to the
extent possible because spiked samples
may not mimic natural samples from
individuals. We encourage device
developers to consult the study designs
and recommendations in the FDA
recognized voluntary consensus
standard EP07, Interference Testing in
Clinical Chemistry, 3rd Ed. (see https://
www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/
cfdocs/cfstandards/
detail.cfm?standard__identification_
no=37749).
(Comment 4) One commenter
requested that FDA clarify the meaning
1 FDA has issued guidance for submitters on the
Q-submission program. See ‘‘Requests for Feedback
and Meetings for Medical Device Submissions: The
Q-Submission Program; Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff’’ dated January
6, 2021, available at https://www.fda.gov/media/
114034/download.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of ‘‘production lots’’ in
§ 866.3958(b)(2)(iv), which requires that
device verification and validation
include a ‘‘[m]ultisite reproducibility
study that includes the testing of three
independent production lots.’’
Specifically, the commenter asked if
‘‘these [could] be premarket lots, which
are equivalent to what would be
commercialized’’.
(Response 4) FDA believes the
language in § 866.3958(b)(2)(iv) is
sufficiently clear on this issue. The
phrase ‘‘three independent production
lots’’ means three lots of the finished
device, where the lots are produced
independently of each other. While the
three independent lots may be produced
in a premarket validation run, the
devices must be manufactured by a
process equivalent to that for the
devices that will be commercialized.
(Comment 5) Two commenters
recommended harmonizing
reclassification of HIV viral load
monitoring tests with the proposed
reclassification of HIV diagnostic and
supplemental tests and indicated that
doing so could encourage development
of or reduce barriers to marketing
devices intended for use in both
monitoring and diagnosis. Another
comment recommended that FDA align
the special controls for HIV tests with
the requirements for HCV nucleic acid
(NAT) tests in the final reclassification
order ‘‘Microbiology Devices;
Reclassification of Nucleic Acid-Based
Hepatitis C Virus Ribonucleic Acid
Assay Devices, To Be Renamed Nucleic
Acid-Based Hepatitis C Virus
Ribonucleic Acid Tests’’ (Docket No.
FDA–2020–N–1088; April 2, 2020; 86
FR 66169).
(Response 5) Where appropriate, the
special controls for HIV viral load
monitoring tests in § 866.3958 are
aligned with the special controls for HIV
NAT diagnostic and/or supplemental
tests in 21 CFR 866.3957, which were
established in a final order published
May 16, 2022 (Microbiology Devices:
Reclassification of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Serological
Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and
Supplemental Tests, 87 FR 29661).
However, although a test may use the
same technology for two different
intended uses, e.g., use of NAT tests as
an aid in diagnosis of HIV infection and
for viral load monitoring, the risks of a
false negative result from a diagnostic
test are not identical to and are
potentially greater than the risks of a
false negative result of a viral load test.
For example, an individual living with
HIV whose viral load is being monitored
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
is under the care of a healthcare
provider. In this instance, the risk of an
incorrect result may be mitigated by
clinical oversight. However, an
individual undergoing diagnostic testing
may have no signs or symptoms of
infection, and one risk of an incorrect
result is that they may be lost to care
altogether. FDA is committed to
working with manufacturers seeking
clearance of a device for both intended
uses using a least-burdensome
approach.2
With respect to the comment
regarding alignment of special controls
for HIV tests with those finalized for
nucleic acid-based HCV ribonucleic
acid (RNA) tests, we note that the
special controls necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of an in vitro diagnostic
device are based on, among other things,
the specific analyte measured, the
disease or condition for which the
particular device is intended to be used
in diagnosis, and the conditions of use.
This means that the special controls
may vary between devices that measure
different analytes (e.g., HIV and HCV) or
with different conditions of use (e.g.,
point of care versus lab-based) because
the risks associated with each device are
different. FDA has determined that the
special controls identified in the
proposed order are, together with
general controls, sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness for HIV viral load
monitoring tests. Therefore, FDA is
finalizing those special controls in this
order without making changes to align
them further with those for nucleic acidbased HCV RNA tests.
To the extent the comment addresses
alignment of special controls for HIV
diagnostic and supplemental tests with
those for nucleic acid-based HCV RNA
tests, the comment is outside of the
scope of this final order. For a
discussion of comments received on
FDA’s proposed special controls for HIV
NAT diagnostic and supplemental tests
and HIV serological diagnostic and
supplemental tests, please refer to the
final order, ‘‘Microbiology Devices;
Reclassification of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Serological
Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and
Supplemental Tests’’ (Docket No. FDA–
2019–N–5192; May 16, 2022; 87 FR
29661).
2 See ‘‘The Least Burdensome Provisions:
Concepts and Principles; Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff’’ (February 5,
2019), available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/search-fda-guidance-documents/leastburdensome-provisions-concept-and-principles.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Nov 03, 2022
Jkt 259001
III. Final Order
Based on the information discussed in
the preamble to the proposed order (86
FR 66982), the comments received on
the proposed order, and FDA’s
experience over the years with this
device type, FDA concludes that special
controls, in conjunction with general
controls, will provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of HIV viral load monitoring tests. FDA
is adopting its findings under section
513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, as published
in the preamble to the proposed order.
FDA is issuing this final order to
reclassify HIV viral load monitoring
tests from class III into class II and to
establish special controls that will be
codified at § 866.3958.3 In this final
order, the Agency has identified special
controls under section 513(a)(1)(B) of
the FD&C Act which, together with
general controls, provide a reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of HIV viral load monitoring tests. FDA
is reclassifying these devices and
establishing special controls as
published in the proposed order (86 FR
66982) with minor editorial changes for
clarity in § 866.3958(a), (b)(1)(iii), and
(b)(2)(vii).
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the
FD&C Act if FDA determines that
premarket notification is not necessary
to provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device.
FDA has determined that premarket
notification is necessary to provide a
reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of HIV viral load
monitoring tests. Therefore, this device
type is not exempt from premarket
notification requirements. Persons who
intend to market HIV viral load
monitoring tests must submit and obtain
clearance of a premarket notification
and demonstrate compliance with the
special controls in this final order, prior
to marketing the device.
The devices that are the subject of this
reclassification are assigned the generic
name ‘‘human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) viral load monitoring tests’’. HIV
viral load monitoring tests are identified
as in vitro diagnostic prescription
3 FDA notes that the ‘‘ACTION’’ caption for this
final order is styled as ‘‘Final amendment; final
order,’’ rather than ‘‘Final order.’’ Beginning in
December 2019, this editorial change was made to
indicate that the document ‘‘amends’’ the Code of
Federal Regulations. This change was made in
accordance with the Office of Federal Register’s
(OFR) interpretations of the Federal Register Act
(44 U.S.C. chapter 15), its implementing regulations
(1 CFR 5.9 and parts 21 and 22), and the Document
Drafting Handbook.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66547
devices for the quantitation of the
amount of HIV RNA in human body
fluids. HIV viral load monitoring tests
are intended for use in the clinical
management of individuals living with
HIV and are for professional use only.
These devices are not intended for use
as an aid in diagnosis or for screening
donors of blood or blood products or
human cells, tissues, or cellular and
tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).
Under this final order, the HIV viral
load monitoring tests are identified as
prescription use only devices. As such,
these prescription devices must satisfy
prescription labeling requirements for in
vitro diagnostic products (see 21 CFR
809.10(a)(4) and (b)(5)(ii)). A premarket
notification submission for these
devices will be required in the
circumstances described in 21 CFR
807.81.
IV. Codification of Orders
Under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C
Act, FDA may issue final orders to
reclassify devices. FDA will continue to
codify classifications and
reclassifications in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). Changes resulting
from final orders will appear in the CFR
as newly codified orders. In accordance
with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act,
we are codifying in this final order the
classification of HIV viral load
monitoring tests in the new § 866.3958,
under which these devices are
reclassified from class III to class II.
V. 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.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA concludes that this final order
contains no new collection of
information. Therefore, clearance by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3521) is not required.
This final order refers to previously
approved FDA collections of
information. These collections of
information are subject to review by the
OMB under the PRA. The collections of
information in part 807, subpart E,
regarding premarket notification
submissions have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0120; the
collections of information in 21 CFR
part 820 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0073; the
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
66548
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
collections of information in 21 CFR
part 803 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0437; and
the collections of information in 21 CFR
parts 801 and 809 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 § 866.3958 to subpart D to read
as follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
§ 866.3958 Human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) viral load monitoring test.
(a) Identification. A human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral
load monitoring test is an in vitro
diagnostic prescription device for the
quantitation of the amount of HIV
ribonucleic acid (RNA) in human body
fluids. The test is intended for use in the
clinical management of individuals
living with HIV and is for professional
use only. The test results are intended
to be interpreted in conjunction with
other relevant clinical and laboratory
findings. The test is not intended to be
used as an aid in diagnosis or for
screening donors of blood or blood
products or human cells, tissues, or
cellular and tissue-based products
(HCT/Ps).
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special controls for this
device are:
(1) The labeling must include:
(i) An intended use that states that the
device is not intended for use as an aid
in diagnosis or for use in screening
donors of blood or blood products, or
HCT/Ps.
(ii) A detailed explanation of the
principles of operation and procedures
used for assay performance.
(iii) A detailed explanation of the
interpretation of results and that
recommended actions should be based
on current clinical guidelines.
(iv) Limitations, which must be
updated to reflect current clinical
practice and patient management. The
limitations must include, but are not
limited to, statements that indicate:
(A) The matrices and sample types
with which the device has been cleared
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Nov 03, 2022
Jkt 259001
and that use of this test with specimen
types other than those specifically
cleared for this device may cause
inaccurate test results.
(B) Mutations in highly conserved
regions may affect binding of primers
and/or probes resulting in the underquantitation of virus or failure to detect
the presence of virus.
(C) All test results should be
interpreted in conjunction with the
individual’s clinical presentation,
history, and other laboratory results.
(2) Device verification and validation
must include:
(i) Detailed device description,
including the device components,
ancillary reagents required but not
provided, and an explanation of the
device methodology. Additional
information appropriate to the
technology must be included, such as
detailed information on the design of
primers and probes.
(ii) For devices with assay calibrators,
the design and nature of all primary,
secondary, and subsequent quantitation
standards used for calibration as well as
their traceability to a reference material.
In addition, analytical testing must be
performed following the release of a
new lot of the standard material that
was used for device clearance, or when
there is a transition to a new calibration
standard.
(iii) Detailed documentation of
analytical performance studies
conducted as appropriate to the
technology, specimen types tested, and
intended use of the device, including
but not limited to, limit of blank, limit
of detection, limit of quantitation, cutoff
determination, precision, linearity,
endogenous and exogenous
interferences, cross-reactivity, carryover, quality control, matrix
equivalency, sample and reagent
stability. Samples selected for use in
analytical studies or used to prepare
samples for use in analytical studies
must be from subjects with clinically
relevant genotypes circulating in the
United States.
(iv) Multisite reproducibility study
that includes the testing of three
independent production lots.
(v) Analytical sensitivity of the device
must demonstrate acceptable
performance at current clinically
relevant medical decision points.
Samples tested to demonstrate
analytical sensitivity must include
appropriate numbers and types of
samples, including real clinical samples
near the lower limit of quantitation and
any clinically relevant medical decision
points. Analytical specificity of the
device must demonstrate acceptable
performance. Samples tested to
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
demonstrate analytical specificity must
include appropriate numbers and types
of samples from patients with different
underlying illnesses and infection and
from patients with potential interfering
substances.
(vi) Detailed documentation of
performance from a multisite clinical
study or a multisite analytical method
comparison study.
(A) For devices evaluated in a
multisite clinical study, the study must
use specimens from individuals living
with HIV being monitored for changes
in viral load, and the test results must
be compared to the clinical status of the
patients.
(B) For tests evaluated in a multisite
analytical method comparison study,
the performance of the test must be
compared to an FDA-cleared or
approved comparator. The multisite
method comparison study must include
appropriate numbers and types of
samples with analyte concentrations
across the measuring range of the assay,
representing clinically relevant
genotypes. The multisite method
comparison study design, including
number of samples tested, must be
sufficient to meet the following criteria:
(1) Agreement between the two tests
across the measuring range of the assays
must have an r2 of greater than or equal
to 0.95.
(2) The bias between the test and
comparator assay, as determined by
difference plots, must be less than or
equal to 0.5 log copies/mL.
(vii) Detailed documentation of a
single-site analytical method
comparison study between the device
and an FDA-cleared or approved
comparator if a multisite clinical study
is performed under paragraph(b)(2)(vi)
of this section. The analytical method
comparison study must use appropriate
numbers and types of samples with
analyte concentrations across the
measuring range of the assay,
representing clinically relevant
genotypes. The results must meet the
criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(vi)(B)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(viii) Strategies for detection of new
strains, types, subtypes, genotypes, and
genetic mutations as they emerge.
(ix) Risk analysis and management
strategies, such as Failure Modes Effects
Analysis and/or Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Points summaries and
their impact on test performance.
(x) Final release criteria to be used for
manufactured device lots with an
appropriate justification that lots
released at the extremes of the
specifications will meet the claimed
analytical and clinical performance
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
characteristics as well as the stability
claims.
(xi) All stability protocols, including
acceptance criteria.
(xii) Appropriate and acceptable
procedure(s) for addressing complaints
and other device information that
determines when to submit a medical
device report.
(xiii) Premarket notification
submissions must include the
information contained in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) through (xii) of this section.
Dated: October 28, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022–23868 Filed 11–3–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
28 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. USPC–2020–04]
RIN 1104–AA09
Paroling, Recommitting, and
Supervising Federal Prisoners:
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under
the United States and District of
Columbia Codes
United States Parole
Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Parole Commission
is modifying a rule that permits it to
reopen a case and rescind a parole date
when the prisoner has committed a
violation of institutional rules. This
modification will permit findings by a
Residential Reentry Center’s
Disciplinary Committee, as well as
findings by the Disciplinary Hearing
Officer, as conclusive evidence of
misconduct for the United States Parole
Commission to rescind an established
parole date.
DATES: This regulation is effective
November 4, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel, U.S.
Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE,
Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530,
telephone (202) 346–7000. Questions
about this publication are welcome, but
inquiries concerning individual cases
cannot be answered over the telephone.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2021,
the United States Parole Commission
issued an interim rule revising 28 CFR
2.34(a) (86 FR 51271, September 15,
2021). The comment period expired on
November 15, 2021, and the Parole
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:31 Nov 03, 2022
Jkt 259001
Commission did not receive any
comments on the change. On October
13, 2022, the Parole Commission voted
to
After the U.S. Parole Commission has
granted a prisoner a parole effective
date, but before the prisoner has signed
the parole certificate, if the prisoner
violates the rules of the institution, the
Parole Commission may reopen the case
and schedule a rescission hearing. 28
CFR 2.34(a). At that hearing, the Parole
Commission may consider the report of
the Bureau of Prisons (‘‘BOP’’)
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (‘‘DHO’’)
following a disciplinary hearing, that a
prisoner has violated disciplinary rules
as ‘‘conclusive evidence of institutional
misconduct,’’ and does not need to
conduct a full hearing to consider
witnesses and evidence. 28 CFR 2.34(c).
The disciplinary hearing conducted by
the DHO complies with the procedural
due process requirements established by
the Supreme Court in Wolff v.
McDonnell, i.e., the prisoner has notice
of the alleged violations at least 24
hours in advance of hearing, a statement
of factfinding, the right to call witnesses
and present documentary evidence.
Thus, the Parole Commission may rely
on the findings and conclusions of the
DHO to take action in response to the
information.
For prisoners who are housed at a
Residential Reentry Center (‘‘RRC’’)
prior to their release and violate the
rules, the in-person disciplinary hearing
is conducted before the RRC’s Center
Disciplinary Committee (‘‘CDC’’). Under
the BOP’s Program Statement 7300.09,
the CDC then refers its findings to the
DHO for review, final action, and
sanctions. Every court which has
examined the procedures established by
Program Statement 7300.09 has held
that hearing procedures used by the
CDC satisfy the procedural due process
requirements established by the
Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell.
This rule permits the U.S. Parole
Commission to rely on the CDC’s
findings to promote the smooth
transition to the community or to return
a prisoner who has demonstrated that
he or she is not ready to be released to
the community without requiring a
second hearing by the DHO or a fully
contested disciplinary hearing
conducted by the U.S. Parole
Commission.
The Parole Commission has added a
phrase to clarify that parole may also be
rescinded without a hearing for DC
Code prisoners for up to 120 days. The
interim rule only referenced the 90-day
rescission of parole that pertains to US
Code prisoners and the rule will apply
correspondingly to US Code prisoner
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
66549
and DC Code prisoners under the Parole
Commission’s jurisdiction. The Parole
Commission is publishing the revised
rule at § 2.34(a) as a final rule without
seeking public comment because this
does not create a substantive change to
parole decision-making.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulation Planning and
Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of
Regulation, and in accordance with
Executive Order 13565, ‘‘Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’
section 1(b), General Principles of
Regulation. The Commission has
determined that this rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
accordingly this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Under Executive
Order 13132, this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications
requiring a federalism assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial
number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not cause State, local,
or tribal governments, or the private
sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in
any one year, and will not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
No action under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is
necessary.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E—
Congressional Review Act)
This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by Section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—
Congressional Review Act, now codified
at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not
result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on the ability
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66545-66549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23868]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2297]
Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency
Virus Viral Load Monitoring Tests
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final amendment; final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
issuing a final order to reclassify human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
viral load monitoring tests, postamendments class III devices with the
product code MZF, into class II (special controls), subject to
premarket notification. Through this final order, FDA is also adding a
new device classification regulation along with special controls that
are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness for this device type. The final order reclassifies this
device type from class III (premarket approval) to class II (special
controls) and will reduce the regulatory burdens associated with these
devices because manufacturers will no longer be required to submit a
premarket approval application (PMA) for this device type but can
instead submit a less burdensome premarket notification (510(k)) and
receive clearance before marketing their device.
DATES: This order is effective December 5, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Hanna, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Review, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 72, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background--Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by
the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L.
94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), the
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-
115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub.
L. 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L.
108-214), the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110-85), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation
Act (Pub. L. 112-144), among other amendments, establishes a
comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for
human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established
three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory
controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general
controls), class II (general controls and special controls), and class
III (general controls and premarket approval).
Section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act defines the three classes of
devices. Class I devices are those devices for which the general
controls of the FD&C Act (controls authorized by or under sections 501,
502, 510, 516, 518, 519, or 520 (21 U.S.C. 351, 352, 360, 360f, 360h,
360i, or 360j) or any combination of such sections) are sufficient to
provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness; or those
devices for which insufficient information exists to determine that
general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness or to establish special controls to provide
such assurance, but because the devices are not purported or
represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or
for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment
of human health, and do not present a potential unreasonable risk of
illness or injury, are to be regulated by general controls (section
513(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act). Class II devices are those devices for
which general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and for which there is
sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such
assurance, including the promulgation of performance standards,
postmarket surveillance, patient registries, development and
dissemination of guidelines, recommendations, and other appropriate
actions the Agency deems necessary to provide such assurance (section
513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Class III devices are those devices for
which insufficient information exists to determine that general
controls and special controls would provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness, and are purported or represented to be for a
use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of
substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or
present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury (section
513(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act).
Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28,
1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices) are
automatically classified by section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into
class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in
class III and require premarket approval unless, and until: (1) FDA
reclassifies the device into class I or class II, or (2) FDA issues an
order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance
with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does
not require premarket approval. FDA determines whether new devices are
substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket
notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and part 807
(21 CFR part 807), subpart E, of the regulations.
A postamendments device that has been initially classified in class
III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act may be reclassified into
class I or II under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act. Section
513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA, acting by administrative
order, can reclassify the device into class I or class II on its own
initiative, or in response to a petition from the manufacturer or
importer of the device. To change the classification of the device, the
proposed new class must have sufficient regulatory controls to provide
a reasonable assurance of the
[[Page 66546]]
safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.
In the Federal Register of November 24, 2021 (86 FR 66982), FDA
published a proposed order to reclassify HIV viral load monitoring
tests from class III to class II (special controls), subject to
premarket notification. The comment period on the proposed order closed
on January 24, 2022.
II. Comments on the Proposed Order
In response to the November 24, 2021, proposed order, FDA received
three comments (two comments from public health organizations and one
comment from a device manufacturer) by the close of the comment period,
each containing one or more comments on one or more issues. We describe
and respond to the comments in this section of the document. The order
of response to the commenters is purely for organizational purposes and
does not signify the comment's value or importance nor the order in
which the comments were received.
(Comment 1) All three commenters expressed general support for the
proposed reclassification and proposed special controls.
(Response 1) We acknowledge and appreciate the supportive comments.
In this final order, we are reclassifying HIV viral load monitoring
tests into class II and establishing the special controls published in
the proposed order (86 FR 66982) without modifications except for minor
editorial changes. See Section III, below, for a summary of the final
order.
(Comment 2) One commenter requested that FDA provide more detail
regarding the application in various analytical studies of the proposed
requirement under Sec. 866.3958(b)(2)(iii) (21 CFR
866.3958(b)(2)(iii)) that ``[s]amples selected for use in analytical
studies or used to prepare samples for use in analytical studies must
be from subjects with clinically relevant genotypes circulating in the
United States.''
(Response 2) FDA does not agree that additional detail is necessary
to describe the requirement under Sec. 866.3958(b)(2)(iii). The
requirement to use or prepare samples from subjects with clinically
relevant genotypes circulating in the United States is intended to
ensure that the device will detect HIV genotypes that are of clinical
concern at the time the device is cleared. How this requirement should
be implemented for a particular analytical study would depend on other
details regarding study design, the specific device at issue, and the
currently circulating genotypes in the United States. Therefore, it is
not practical to describe how this requirement would apply for all
future analytical studies of HIV viral load monitoring tests in this
final order. If the developer of an HIV viral load monitoring test
seeks feedback about the design of an analytical study specific to the
developer's device, such feedback can be provided through the Q-
submission program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDA has issued guidance for submitters on the Q-submission
program. See ``Requests for Feedback and Meetings for Medical Device
Submissions: The Q-Submission Program; Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff'' dated January 6, 2021,
available at https://www.fda.gov/media/114034/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Comment 3) One commenter addressed proposed Sec.
866.3958(b)(2)(v) and agreed with the requirement that ``[s]amples
tested to demonstrate analytical specificity must include appropriate
numbers and types of samples from patients with underlying illness and
infection. . . .'' With respect to the requirement under proposed Sec.
866.3958(b)(2)(v) that samples tested to demonstrate analytical
specificity ``include appropriate numbers and types of samples . . .
from patients with potential interfering substances[,]'' the commenter
suggested that there be an option to test the effect of specific
interfering substances ``in accordance to [sic] CLSI EP07--Interference
Testing in Clinical Chemistry; Ed 3. Approved Guideline.'' The
commenter added that, ``[i]n this case both HIV-1 positive and HIV-1
negative specimens would be spiked with each potentially interfering
substance (endogenous and exogenous) and tested in the investigational
device.''
(Response 3) We agree with the comment that in some circumstances,
a combination of clinical and spiked samples is appropriate based on
the study goals and design, as discussed in EP07. The special control
provision at Sec. 866.3958(b)(2)(v) does not preclude this
possibility. FDA believes that studies conducted to meet the
requirements under Sec. 866.3958(b)(2)(v) should use clinical samples
to the extent possible because spiked samples may not mimic natural
samples from individuals. We encourage device developers to consult the
study designs and recommendations in the FDA recognized voluntary
consensus standard EP07, Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry,
3rd Ed. (see https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfstandards/detail.cfm?standard__identification_no=37749).
(Comment 4) One commenter requested that FDA clarify the meaning of
``production lots'' in Sec. 866.3958(b)(2)(iv), which requires that
device verification and validation include a ``[m]ultisite
reproducibility study that includes the testing of three independent
production lots.'' Specifically, the commenter asked if ``these [could]
be premarket lots, which are equivalent to what would be
commercialized''.
(Response 4) FDA believes the language in Sec. 866.3958(b)(2)(iv)
is sufficiently clear on this issue. The phrase ``three independent
production lots'' means three lots of the finished device, where the
lots are produced independently of each other. While the three
independent lots may be produced in a premarket validation run, the
devices must be manufactured by a process equivalent to that for the
devices that will be commercialized.
(Comment 5) Two commenters recommended harmonizing reclassification
of HIV viral load monitoring tests with the proposed reclassification
of HIV diagnostic and supplemental tests and indicated that doing so
could encourage development of or reduce barriers to marketing devices
intended for use in both monitoring and diagnosis. Another comment
recommended that FDA align the special controls for HIV tests with the
requirements for HCV nucleic acid (NAT) tests in the final
reclassification order ``Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of
Nucleic Acid-Based Hepatitis C Virus Ribonucleic Acid Assay Devices, To
Be Renamed Nucleic Acid-Based Hepatitis C Virus Ribonucleic Acid
Tests'' (Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1088; April 2, 2020; 86 FR 66169).
(Response 5) Where appropriate, the special controls for HIV viral
load monitoring tests in Sec. 866.3958 are aligned with the special
controls for HIV NAT diagnostic and/or supplemental tests in 21 CFR
866.3957, which were established in a final order published May 16,
2022 (Microbiology Devices: Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency
Virus Serological Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests,
87 FR 29661). However, although a test may use the same technology for
two different intended uses, e.g., use of NAT tests as an aid in
diagnosis of HIV infection and for viral load monitoring, the risks of
a false negative result from a diagnostic test are not identical to and
are potentially greater than the risks of a false negative result of a
viral load test. For example, an individual living with HIV whose viral
load is being monitored
[[Page 66547]]
is under the care of a healthcare provider. In this instance, the risk
of an incorrect result may be mitigated by clinical oversight. However,
an individual undergoing diagnostic testing may have no signs or
symptoms of infection, and one risk of an incorrect result is that they
may be lost to care altogether. FDA is committed to working with
manufacturers seeking clearance of a device for both intended uses
using a least-burdensome approach.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``The Least Burdensome Provisions: Concepts and
Principles; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff'' (February 5, 2019), available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/least-burdensome-provisions-concept-and-principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the comment regarding alignment of special controls
for HIV tests with those finalized for nucleic acid-based HCV
ribonucleic acid (RNA) tests, we note that the special controls
necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness
of an in vitro diagnostic device are based on, among other things, the
specific analyte measured, the disease or condition for which the
particular device is intended to be used in diagnosis, and the
conditions of use. This means that the special controls may vary
between devices that measure different analytes (e.g., HIV and HCV) or
with different conditions of use (e.g., point of care versus lab-based)
because the risks associated with each device are different. FDA has
determined that the special controls identified in the proposed order
are, together with general controls, sufficient to provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness for HIV viral load monitoring
tests. Therefore, FDA is finalizing those special controls in this
order without making changes to align them further with those for
nucleic acid-based HCV RNA tests.
To the extent the comment addresses alignment of special controls
for HIV diagnostic and supplemental tests with those for nucleic acid-
based HCV RNA tests, the comment is outside of the scope of this final
order. For a discussion of comments received on FDA's proposed special
controls for HIV NAT diagnostic and supplemental tests and HIV
serological diagnostic and supplemental tests, please refer to the
final order, ``Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Serological Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests
and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and
Supplemental Tests'' (Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5192; May 16, 2022; 87 FR
29661).
III. Final Order
Based on the information discussed in the preamble to the proposed
order (86 FR 66982), the comments received on the proposed order, and
FDA's experience over the years with this device type, FDA concludes
that special controls, in conjunction with general controls, will
provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of HIV
viral load monitoring tests. FDA is adopting its findings under section
513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, as published in the preamble to the proposed
order.
FDA is issuing this final order to reclassify HIV viral load
monitoring tests from class III into class II and to establish special
controls that will be codified at Sec. 866.3958.\3\ In this final
order, the Agency has identified special controls under section
513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act which, together with general controls,
provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of HIV
viral load monitoring tests. FDA is reclassifying these devices and
establishing special controls as published in the proposed order (86 FR
66982) with minor editorial changes for clarity in Sec. 866.3958(a),
(b)(1)(iii), and (b)(2)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FDA notes that the ``ACTION'' caption for this final order
is styled as ``Final amendment; final order,'' rather than ``Final
order.'' Beginning in December 2019, this editorial change was made
to indicate that the document ``amends'' the Code of Federal
Regulations. This change was made in accordance with the Office of
Federal Register's (OFR) interpretations of the Federal Register Act
(44 U.S.C. chapter 15), its implementing regulations (1 CFR 5.9 and
parts 21 and 22), and the Document Drafting Handbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification requirements under section
510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is
not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device. FDA has determined that premarket
notification is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of HIV viral load monitoring tests. Therefore,
this device type is not exempt from premarket notification
requirements. Persons who intend to market HIV viral load monitoring
tests must submit and obtain clearance of a premarket notification and
demonstrate compliance with the special controls in this final order,
prior to marketing the device.
The devices that are the subject of this reclassification are
assigned the generic name ``human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral
load monitoring tests''. HIV viral load monitoring tests are identified
as in vitro diagnostic prescription devices for the quantitation of the
amount of HIV RNA in human body fluids. HIV viral load monitoring tests
are intended for use in the clinical management of individuals living
with HIV and are for professional use only. These devices are not
intended for use as an aid in diagnosis or for screening donors of
blood or blood products or human cells, tissues, or cellular and
tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).
Under this final order, the HIV viral load monitoring tests are
identified as prescription use only devices. As such, these
prescription devices must satisfy prescription labeling requirements
for in vitro diagnostic products (see 21 CFR 809.10(a)(4) and
(b)(5)(ii)). A premarket notification submission for these devices will
be required in the circumstances described in 21 CFR 807.81.
IV. Codification of Orders
Under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, FDA may issue final orders
to reclassify devices. FDA will continue to codify classifications and
reclassifications in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Changes
resulting from final orders will appear in the CFR as newly codified
orders. In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, we are
codifying in this final order the classification of HIV viral load
monitoring tests in the new Sec. 866.3958, under which these devices
are reclassified from class III to class II.
V. 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.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA concludes that this final order contains no new collection of
information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3521) is not required.
This final order refers to previously approved FDA collections of
information. These collections of information are subject to review by
the OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in part 807,
subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0073; the
[[Page 66548]]
collections of information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0437; and the collections of information in 21
CFR parts 801 and 809 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. 866.3958 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 866.3958 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load
monitoring test.
(a) Identification. A human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load
monitoring test is an in vitro diagnostic prescription device for the
quantitation of the amount of HIV ribonucleic acid (RNA) in human body
fluids. The test is intended for use in the clinical management of
individuals living with HIV and is for professional use only. The test
results are intended to be interpreted in conjunction with other
relevant clinical and laboratory findings. The test is not intended to
be used as an aid in diagnosis or for screening donors of blood or
blood products or human cells, tissues, or cellular and tissue-based
products (HCT/Ps).
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
controls for this device are:
(1) The labeling must include:
(i) An intended use that states that the device is not intended for
use as an aid in diagnosis or for use in screening donors of blood or
blood products, or HCT/Ps.
(ii) A detailed explanation of the principles of operation and
procedures used for assay performance.
(iii) A detailed explanation of the interpretation of results and
that recommended actions should be based on current clinical
guidelines.
(iv) Limitations, which must be updated to reflect current clinical
practice and patient management. The limitations must include, but are
not limited to, statements that indicate:
(A) The matrices and sample types with which the device has been
cleared and that use of this test with specimen types other than those
specifically cleared for this device may cause inaccurate test results.
(B) Mutations in highly conserved regions may affect binding of
primers and/or probes resulting in the under-quantitation of virus or
failure to detect the presence of virus.
(C) All test results should be interpreted in conjunction with the
individual's clinical presentation, history, and other laboratory
results.
(2) Device verification and validation must include:
(i) Detailed device description, including the device components,
ancillary reagents required but not provided, and an explanation of the
device methodology. Additional information appropriate to the
technology must be included, such as detailed information on the design
of primers and probes.
(ii) For devices with assay calibrators, the design and nature of
all primary, secondary, and subsequent quantitation standards used for
calibration as well as their traceability to a reference material. In
addition, analytical testing must be performed following the release of
a new lot of the standard material that was used for device clearance,
or when there is a transition to a new calibration standard.
(iii) Detailed documentation of analytical performance studies
conducted as appropriate to the technology, specimen types tested, and
intended use of the device, including but not limited to, limit of
blank, limit of detection, limit of quantitation, cutoff determination,
precision, linearity, endogenous and exogenous interferences, cross-
reactivity, carry-over, quality control, matrix equivalency, sample and
reagent stability. Samples selected for use in analytical studies or
used to prepare samples for use in analytical studies must be from
subjects with clinically relevant genotypes circulating in the United
States.
(iv) Multisite reproducibility study that includes the testing of
three independent production lots.
(v) Analytical sensitivity of the device must demonstrate
acceptable performance at current clinically relevant medical decision
points. Samples tested to demonstrate analytical sensitivity must
include appropriate numbers and types of samples, including real
clinical samples near the lower limit of quantitation and any
clinically relevant medical decision points. Analytical specificity of
the device must demonstrate acceptable performance. Samples tested to
demonstrate analytical specificity must include appropriate numbers and
types of samples from patients with different underlying illnesses and
infection and from patients with potential interfering substances.
(vi) Detailed documentation of performance from a multisite
clinical study or a multisite analytical method comparison study.
(A) For devices evaluated in a multisite clinical study, the study
must use specimens from individuals living with HIV being monitored for
changes in viral load, and the test results must be compared to the
clinical status of the patients.
(B) For tests evaluated in a multisite analytical method comparison
study, the performance of the test must be compared to an FDA-cleared
or approved comparator. The multisite method comparison study must
include appropriate numbers and types of samples with analyte
concentrations across the measuring range of the assay, representing
clinically relevant genotypes. The multisite method comparison study
design, including number of samples tested, must be sufficient to meet
the following criteria:
(1) Agreement between the two tests across the measuring range of
the assays must have an r2 of greater than or equal to 0.95.
(2) The bias between the test and comparator assay, as determined
by difference plots, must be less than or equal to 0.5 log copies/mL.
(vii) Detailed documentation of a single-site analytical method
comparison study between the device and an FDA-cleared or approved
comparator if a multisite clinical study is performed under
paragraph(b)(2)(vi) of this section. The analytical method comparison
study must use appropriate numbers and types of samples with analyte
concentrations across the measuring range of the assay, representing
clinically relevant genotypes. The results must meet the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(2)(vi)(B)(1) and (2) of this section.
(viii) Strategies for detection of new strains, types, subtypes,
genotypes, and genetic mutations as they emerge.
(ix) Risk analysis and management strategies, such as Failure Modes
Effects Analysis and/or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
summaries and their impact on test performance.
(x) Final release criteria to be used for manufactured device lots
with an appropriate justification that lots released at the extremes of
the specifications will meet the claimed analytical and clinical
performance
[[Page 66549]]
characteristics as well as the stability claims.
(xi) All stability protocols, including acceptance criteria.
(xii) Appropriate and acceptable procedure(s) for addressing
complaints and other device information that determines when to submit
a medical device report.
(xiii) Premarket notification submissions must include the
information contained in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (xii) of this
section.
Dated: October 28, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-23868 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P