Oncocyte Corp

Current report

If the FDA takes the position that any of our tests are not within the scope of its policy on enforcement discretion for laboratory-developed tests, or otherwise determines that it will seek to actively regulate one or more of our diagnostic tests, responding to such a regulatory position could lead to delays in commercialization, or (if encountered after commercialization) requirements to halt the commercial provision of our tests until FDA marketing authorization is obtained.

Current report

In May 2024, the FDA published a final rule that phases out its enforcement discretion for LDTs, unless exempt, and amends the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that IVDs are medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), including when the manufacturer of the diagnostic product is a laboratory. The American Clinical Laboratory Association and a private laboratory have filed lawsuits against the FDA to challenge its authority to regulate LDTs under this final rule. The full impact of this final rule and the existing (and any future) challenges against currently remains to be seen.

Current report

If the FDA is successful in overcoming challenges to the final rule and ultimately regulates certain LDTs as intended under the final rule, our tests may be subject to certain additional regulatory requirements, the scope of which may vary from one test to another based on various considerations. Complying with the FDA’s requirements can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject us to significant or unanticipated delays. To the extent we are required to obtain premarket clearance or approval to perform or continue performing any of our tests, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain such authorization. Even if we obtain regulatory clearance or approval where required, such authorization may not be for the intended uses that we believe are commercially attractive or are critical to the commercial success of our tests. Based on these and other considerations, the implementation of the FDA’s final rule on LDTs could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current report

We currently market certain IVDs that have not been cleared by the FDA in reliance on the regulatory exemption for IVDs intended for RUO, but if the FDA determines that our RUO tests do not meet the applicable requirements for exemption or have intended uses that are inconsistent with RUO tests, we may be required to suspend commercialization of such products until we can obtain the requisite FDA clearance and/or subject to FDA warning or untitled letters, seizure, injunction, fines, or other enforcement action.

Current report

Some of our tests are marketed for RUO, which allows us to sell such products without the premarket clearance that FDA requires for the marketing of traditional devices. An RUO product may not be marketed for clinical diagnostic use and must be labeled “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.” Products that are intended for research use only and are properly labeled as RUO are exempt from compliance with the FDA’s pre- and post-market requirements to which traditional devices are subject, including the requirement that the product be cleared or approved before commercialization and QSR requirements. However, merely including the required RUO labeling will not necessarily exempt the device from the FDA's 510(k) clearance, premarket approval, or other requirements if the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product indicate an objective intent to market the product for clinical diagnostic use.

Current report

According to the FDA guidance, circumstances indicating manufacturer intent to market an in vitro device for diagnostic use may include written or verbal marketing claims regarding a product's clinical efficacy or performance in clinical applications, instructions for clinical interpretation, clinical information, product names, or descriptors that claim or suggest that the IVD product may be used for any clinical diagnostic use, including a clinical investigation that is not exempt from the FDA’s investigational device exemption regulations. Other indications include a manufacturer's provision of technical support for clinical validation or clinical applications or solicitation of business from clinical laboratories that do not conduct research activities, all of which could be considered evidence of intended uses that conflict with RUO labeling.

Current report

In general, if (i) evidence shows that one or more of our IVDs are inappropriately labeled RUO (but marketed for clinical diagnostic use), such test(s) will not qualify for an IDE exemption and will be deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Device manufacturers found in violation of the FDCA may be subject to a wide range of enforcement action, including warning letters, seizure, injunction, criminal prosecution, monetary penalties, and others.

Current report

We believe that our promotional activities for our RUO products fall within the scope of the applicable premarket exemptions for RUO tests and the FDA’s enforcement discretion, as described in its relevant guidance. However, the FDA could disagree and require us to (i) stop promoting our RUO devices unless/until we obtain FDA clearance or approval (among other possible outcomes). Any adverse determination in relation to our marketing of current or future products for RUO will likely have a material adverse impact on our business.

Previous report

Changes in the way the FDA regulates diagnostic tests developed by laboratories like ours could result in delays in commercialization (or if encountered after commercialization, requirements to halt the commercial provision of our tests until applicable FDA requirements are met), as well as additional expenses in offering our tests and tests that we may develop in the future.

Previous report

Although the FDA has historically exercised enforcement discretion over most LDTs, it does not consider tests to be subject to this enforcement discretion if they were or are designed or manufactured completely, or partly, outside of the laboratory that offers and uses them, or if they are offered “over-the-counter” (as opposed to being available to patients only when prescribed by a health care provider). In recent years, however, the FDA has stated it intends to end its policy of general enforcement discretion and regulate certain LDTs as medical devices.

Previous report

In September 2023, the FDA announced a proposed rule aimed at helping to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these tests. The proposed rule seeks to amend the FDA’s regulations to make explicit that IVDs are devices under the FD&C Act, including when the manufacturer of the IVD is a laboratory. Along with this amendment, the FDA is proposing a policy under which the FDA intends to provide greater oversight of LDTs through a phaseout of its general enforcement discretion approach for most LDTs.

Previous report

In October 2023, the FDA published the proposed rule entitled “Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests.” The final rule was released to the public on April 29, 2024, and then officially published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024, with an effective date of July 5, 2024.

Previous report

The final rule provides that the LDT enforcement policy phase-out process will occur in gradual stages over a total period of four years, with premarket approval applications for high-risk tests to be submitted by the 3.5-year mark. Moderate-risk and low-risks tests are expected to be in compliance at the 4-year mark, although FDA has stated that if premarket submissions are pending review it will continue to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to those tests. Litigation challenging the agency’s authority to adopt this final rule is highly likely, although the outcome of such litigation is uncertain. Litigation challenging the final rule may also have an impact on the FDA’s plans to implement these new LDT requirements, making the potential implementation timeline somewhat uncertain. Affected stakeholders continue to press for a comprehensive legislative solution to create a harmonized paradigm for oversight of LDTs by both the FDA and CMS, instead of implementation of the administrative agency action, which may be disruptive to the industry and to patient access to certain diagnostic tests. Until any regulatory changes become effective, the FDA is expected to continue to exercise enforcement discretion; although it may attempt to regulate certain LDTs on a case-by-case basis at any time, which could result in delay or additional expense in offering our tests and tests that we may develop in the future.

Previous report

In addition, Congress has considered a number of legislative proposals in recent years that would amend the regulatory framework for LDTs, including, among other requirements, FDA premarket review of certain LDTs. In March 2020, the VALID Act, was officially introduced in Congress. The bill proposes a risk-based approach to regulate LDTs and creates a new in vitro clinical test, or IVCT, category of regulated products, which includes LDTs, and a regulatory structure under the FDA. As proposed, the bill grandfathers many existing tests from the proposed premarket approval, quality systems, and labeling requirements, respectively, but would require such tests to comply with other regulatory requirements (e.g., registration and listing, adverse event reporting). Later that month, Senator Paul introduced the VITAL Act, which proposes that all aspects of “laboratory-developed testing procedures” be subject to regulation under CLIA, and that no aspects of such procedures be subject to regulation by the FDA. We cannot predict if either of these bills will be enacted in their current (or any other) form and cannot quantify the effect of these bills on our business.