GEN Exclusives

More »

Feature Articles

More »
Mar 1, 2010 (Vol. 30, No. 5)

Oversight of Research Use Only Products

RUO Assays and Instruments Face Greater Scrutiny

  • Guidance Documents

    FDA has initiated several attempts to try to regulate RUO products more tightly. In the early 1990s, FDA issued a draft Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) document that sought to significantly restrict the availability of RUO products. This guidance document went through several iterations but was never finalized. There is still no guidance document setting out FDA’s policy regarding RUO products, however, reports have recently surfaced that a new RUO policy may finally be released.

    One of the elements set forth in the draft CPG was that the distributor of the RUO product should receive a certification from the laboratory customer that the product will be used for research purposes only. Although the CPG was not adopted, some vendors have asked laboratories to sign some type of acknowledgement form. While this will help support a vendor’s position that its product is intended only for research use, it is not currently required. FDA has, however, “encouraged” some instrument suppliers to adopt certification programs. 

    Concerned by the proliferation of RUO products, in 1997 FDA tried a different tack. That year, FDA promulgated the Analyte Specific Reagent (ASR) regulation. ASRs were broadly defined as the building blocks of diagnostic assays. Unlike RUOs, ASRs were subject to FDA requirements, including QSRs and Medical Device Reporting. This regulation was prompted, in part, by the belief that it would result in the availability of higher quality materials for laboratory tests and displace some of the lower quality RUOs.

    To some degree, that plan succeeded. Many different products were offered to laboratories as ASRs. However, while many of these were basic chemical components, more complex products were also sold as ASRs. Ultimately, FDA concluded that the ASR regulation was being used as a vehicle for  products that didn’t fit the intent of the regulation.

    FDA therefore released a guidance document in 2007 that substantially curbed the availability of ASRs by prohibiting companies from combining more than one active component. With the advent of molecular diagnostics, selling a single component was often impracticable, e.g., a primer and probe pair need to be offered together. This narrow interpretation of ASRs has essentially precluded the sale of ASRs for use in molecular diagnostics. Somewhat predictability, a number of companies responded by relabeling their ASRs as RUOs. This has helped lead to a renewed focus on RUOs by FDA.

    For years, the principal regulatory question for products labeled as RUOs has been whether they qualify for this classification and hence are not subject to regulation as devices. While FDA has not issued either a regulation or guidance delineating how companies can promote RUOs, the agency has taken enforcement action against a number of RUO companies.

    Even absent regulations or guidance, it is apparent that in FDA’s view a product forfeits its RUO status if certain types of claims are made—claims that the product can diagnose a disease or condition, provide clinical sensitivity or specificity data, or offers a clinical benefit. Correspondingly, the instructions for use (IFU) accompanying the product need to be brief.

    While the bulk of RUO products have been assays, the RUO category also encompasses instruments and equipment. This can present its own set of regulatory challenges, particularly when an IVD applicant has used an RUO instrument in conjunction with developing its assay, a situation that is now occurring with greater frequency. 

    The utilization of RUO instruments in assay development has led to the submission of applications that reference RUO instruments. This may result in naming the RUO instrument in the draft IFU, i.e., the applicant states that the assay is to be performed on an RUO instrument, or the data for the IVD were generated on an RUO instrument.

    While FDA had accepted these practices, that has seemingly changed. Therefore, an IVD company that has tested and validated its assay on an RUO instrument or is using RUO assays in its test system should discuss with FDA at an early stage how to address the regulatory implications that may arise from this situation. Simultaneously, companies that are selling RUO-labeled instruments that are being widely used in diagnostics may find that they will be receiving more regulatory scrutiny from FDA.

    Over the past few years, RUO products have received relatively little attention from FDA. That regulatory lull seems to be ending.


Readers' Comments

Posted 03/01/2010 by Engineer

What 21 CFR Sec. 809.10(c)(2)(i)actually says is:

In vitro diagnostic devices intended for research use (i.e., research IVDs) are devices in the laboratory phase of development and may not be used for clinical (i.e., human) diagnostic or prognostic applications. Research IVDs must be labeled "For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures."

If the product is not an "In Vitro Diagnostic Device" the regulation does not apply.

Add a comment

  • You must be signed in to perform this action.
    Click here to Login or Register for free.
    You will be taken back to your selected item after Login/Registration.

Related content

Jobs

GEN Jobs powered by HireLifeScience.com connects you directly to employers in pharma, biotech, and the life sciences. View 40 to 50 fresh job postings daily or search for employment opportunities including those in R&D, clinical research, QA/QC, biomanufacturing, and regulatory affairs.
 Searching...

Unable to get Jobs Listings.

More »

GEN Poll

More » Poll Results »

Biosimilars

Compared to the original biologics, do you think biosimilars run the risks of being less effective and causing more side effects?