Diagnostic Kits/Glossary

Analyte Specific Reagent (ASR)

Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 (21CFR809.30) states that ASRs may only be sold to: IVD manufacturers, CLIA labs capable of high-complexity testing, and organizations that use the reagents for non-clinical uses.

There are 3 classes of ASRs, I, II, and III. The analytical and performance characteristics of Class I ASRs are not established by the FDA, and for Class II and III ASRs are only established as a component of a cleared test. Because ASRs do not generally require full FDA pre-market review, they can be developed more quickly for less money. But they are not sold as complete diagnostics - instead, CLIA labs purchase ASRs to use in diagnostic tests they develop internally.

Examples of ASRs:

• biomarkers
• etc
• etc

Can non-CLIA customers purchase ASRs for non-clinical use?

What is the distinction between the three classes of ASRs?

• [1] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=809.30
• [2] Phillips, K.a., Van Bebber, S. & Issa, A.M., 2006. Diagnostics and biomarker development: priming the pipeline. Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 5(6), 463-9

Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)

Passed by Congress in 1988, CLIA established "quality standards for all laboratory testing to ensure the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of patient test results regardless of where the test was performed. A laboratory is defined as any facility which performs laboratory testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, treatment of disease, or impairment of, or assessment of health."[1]

The stringency of CLIA regulations increase with the complexity of the test being performed. Three categories have been established: waived complexity, moderate complexity, and high complexity.

The CMS implements CLIA (and receives certification and inspection fees from labs), the CDC is responsible for CLIA studies, and the FDA is responsible for test categorization.

"To enroll in the CLIA program, laboratories must first register by completing an application, pay fees, be surveyed, if applicable, and become certified."[1]

[1] http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CLIA/07_Program_Descriptions_Projects.asp
[2] http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/CLIA/

Reference Lab

background

Rosen. Diagnostic Test Service Commercialization: A Roadmap to Diagnostics in the 21st Century. (2008) pp. 47-48

OPPORTUNITY PRICING AND MARGINS ARE ATTRACTIVE

The bulk of reference lab test services cover highly commoditized routine tests. Here the margins are low because labs compete for clients based on cost per test. As lab medicine evolved with the development of personalized medicine, the complexity of testing has increase significantly.

New technologies are fueling faster growth in segments such as analysis of biopsy tissue, protein biomarkers and genetic testing. LabCorp and Quest have developed tests in these areas, but most have been developed by smaller reference labs such as Esoterix and US Pathology Labs.

Part of the growth in the new single analyte and multiplexed molecular and protein tests is related to the perception that these tests offer physicians decision making information not available with conventional tests. As such they command premium pricing. Therefore Quest and LabCorp have acquired several of the major esoteric testing companies to enhance their position in this high-growth segment.

These labs and other specialized reference labs have a clear advantage over test services offered by companies in their CLIA-registered labs. They have established distribution networks and immediate access to medical specialists. Thus the esoteric test segment is a clear winner for them. The average cost of a molecular test performed in a reference lab ranges from $10 to $50, reimbursement is usually at least $100 and the labs often charge as much as $500 for these tests.

Promotional and clinical study activities that provide scientific and economic evidence of the value of high-priced esoteic tests do not come cheap. None of the test companies that have launched in-company test services are in the black. Genomic Health’s success has been hard bought. The company has invested in researching a panel of biomarkers that has proved effective and has supported numerous clinical studies. Where Genomic Health and other companies that market test services save is in lab technologist training costs, after sales service and continuing education.

The reagent and instrumentation costs for many multiplexed esoteric and genomic tests are still high and demand is relatively low, most hospital labs would not be able to justify investment in offering these tests. Thus, it may appear that profit consideration is the driving force for test services. In effect, the most obvious route to market for complex and still esoteric tests is via collaboration with a reference lab or a CLIA-registered company lab. In this way the test becomes available to the largest number of physicians and patients.