AI-based smartphone apps for risk assessment of skin cancer need more evaluation and better regulation.

Smartphone applications ("apps") with artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are increasingly used in healthcare. Widespread adoption of these apps must be supported by a robust evidence-base and app manufacturers' claims appropriately regulated. Current CE marking assessment processes inadequately protect the public against the risks created by using smartphone diagnostic apps.

Insurance Denials of Care Amount to Unlicensed Medical Practice.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this article. The author has nothing to disclose.

Expert Recommendations on Frequency of Utilization of Common Laboratory Tests in Medical Inpatients: a Canadian Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive inpatient laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability is a marker of low-value care. However, for commonly encountered clinical scenarios on medical units, there are no guidelines defining appropriate use criteria for laboratory tests. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to establish consensus-based recommendations for the utilization of common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. DESIGN: This study uses a modified Delphi method. Participants completed two rounds of an online survey to determine appropriate testing frequencies for selected laboratory tests in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 80% of participants. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 36 experts in internal medicine across Canada defined as internists in independent practice for ≥ 5 years with experience in medical education, quality improvement, or both. Experts represented 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces and 13 of 17 academic institutions. MAIN MEASURES: Laboratory tests and clinical scenarios included were those that were considered common on medical units. The final survey contained a total of 45 clinical scenarios looking at the utilization of six laboratory tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, creatinine, urea, international normalized ratio, and partial thromboplastin time). The possible frequency choices were every 2-4 h, 6-8 h, twice a day, daily, every 2-3 days, weekly, or none unless there was specific diagnostic suspicion. These scenarios were reviewed by two internists with training in quality improvement and survey methods. KEY RESULTS: Of the 45 initial clinical scenarios included, we reached consensus on 17 scenarios. We reached weak consensus on an additional 19 scenarios by combining two adjacent frequency categories. CONCLUSIONS: A Canadian expert panel of internists has provided frequency recommendations on the utilization of six common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. These recommendations need validation in prospective studies to assess whether restrictive versus liberal laboratory test ordering impacts patient outcomes.

Critical evaluation of FDA-approved respiratory multiplex assays for public health surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical management and identification of respiratory diseases has become more rapid and increasingly specific due to widespread use of PCR(polymerase chain reaction) multiplex technologies. Although significantly improving clinical diagnosis, multiplexed PCR assays could have a greater impact on local and global disease surveillance. The authors wish to propose methods of evaluating respiratory multiplex assays to maximize diagnostic yields specifically for surveillance efforts. Areas covered: The authors review multiplexed assays and critically assess what barriers have limited these assays for disease surveillance and how these barriers might be addressed. The manuscript focuses specifically on the case study of using multiplexed assays for surveillance of respiratory pathogens. The authors also provide a method of validation of specific surveillance measures. Expert commentary: Current commercially available respiratory multiplex PCR assays are widely used for clinical diagnosis; however, specific barriers have limited their use for surveillance. Key barriers include differences in testing phase requirements and diagnostic performance evaluation. In this work the authors clarify phase testing requirements and introduce unique diagnostic performance measures that simplify the use of these assays on a per target basis for disease surveillance.

Rapid Antigen Tests for Influenza: Rationale and Significance of the FDA Reclassification.

Rapid antigen tests for influenza, here referred to as rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs), have been widely used for the diagnosis of influenza since their introduction in the 1990s due to their ease of use, rapid results, and suitability for point of care (POC) testing. However, issues related to the diagnostic sensitivity of these assays have been known for decades, and these issues gained greater attention following reports of their poor performance during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. In turn, significant concerns arose about the consequences of false-negative results, which could pose significant risks to both individual patient care and to public health efforts. In response to these concerns, the FDA convened an advisory panel in June 2013 to discuss options to improve the regulation of the performance of RIDTs. A proposed order was published on 22 May 2014, and the final order published on 12 January 2017, reclassifying RIDTs from class I to class II medical devices, with additional requirements to comply with four new special controls. This reclassification is a landmark achievement in the regulation of diagnostic devices for infectious diseases and has important consequences for the future of diagnostic influenza testing with commercial tests, warranting the prompt attention of clinical laboratories, health care systems, and health care providers.

The Manufacturers' Perspective on World Health Organization Prequalification of In Vitro Diagnostics.

In vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) help clinicians determine specific conditions, monitor therapeutic efficacy, and prevent drug resistance development. While stringent regulatory authorities (SRAs) regulate IVDs in most high-income countries, regulatory authorities in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are nonexistent or do not enforce rigorous standards. In 2010, the World Health Organization established its Prequalification of In Vitro Diagnostics (PQDx) program to ensure "access to safe, appropriate and affordable" IVDs, especially in LMICs with little or no domestic regulatory frameworks, thereby reaching underserved populations. However, challenges in PQDx policies and procedures include an overloaded pipeline, timelines not publicly available, confusion about which products PQDx focuses on, perceived burden for documenting changes to prequalified products, overlap with SRA approvals, and uncertainty around long-term financing. PQDx can maximize its impact by considering the perspective of IVD manufacturers; similarly, IVD manufacturers should exercise adequate quality control over their submissions and associated processes.

Regulatory In Vitro Diagnostics Landscape in Africa: Update on Regional Activities.

Improved diagnostic tests for tuberculosis case detection are urgently needed that are affordable, robust, and easy to use so that they can be implemented widely. The mandate of national regulatory authorities is to ensure the safety and effectiveness of diagnostics, protecting the population against unsafe products while expediting access to beneficial new devices. However, regulatory approval processes in the developing world are often complex, lengthy, and not transparent. Recent progress in building regulatory capacity using harmonized approaches will reduce duplication in clinical performance studies and manufacturing audits, facilitate information sharing through trust and mutual confidence building, and ultimately improve efficiency. These savings can be passed onto the consumers in the form of more affordable pricing and allowing new high-quality tests for tuberculosis to be introduced more quickly and without delay.

Diagnostic test allergens used for in vivo diagnosis of allergic diseases are at risk: a European Perspective.

In the European Union (EU), allergens used for diagnostic tests (TAs) are defined as medicinal products and have to be registered by national authorities. The current situation is not homogeneous. Existing authorizations need to be kept in the market in some EU states, while others need complete new authorizations requiring clinical trials, quality assurance methods, stability studies, and periodic safety update reports. Allergen manufacturers argue that offering a comprehensive panel of TAs may be economically disastrous. Expenses for initiation and maintenance of TA authorizations far exceed their related revenues and manufacturers may be forced to significantly limit their allergen portfolios. The availability of a wide range of high-quality TAs is very important for in vivo diagnoses of IgE-mediated allergies. Increased regulatory demands induce costs that need to be covered by public health organizations or reimbursed by health insurance companies.

[Legal basis and practice of examination of critical in vitro diagnostic devices]. / Rechtsgrundlagen und Praxis bei der Prüfung von kritischen In-vitro-Diagnostika.

In vitro diagnostic devices (IVD) are categorized into different risk classes depending on the potential consequences of false test results in transfusion medicine or on the individual patient. Test systems of higher risk may be assessed and examined by a third party in addition to the manufacturer's evaluation. The preapproval examination of essential performance features can assure minimum quality features prior to marketing of the IVDs. By batch testing the variation between different batches of an IVD is determined. Comparative testing in a re-evaluation scheme can define the current state of the art. The present European IVD directive stipulates batch testing for high-risk IVDs while the draft version of the new European IVD regulation also foresees independent product testing performed by European reference laboratories.

Concerns regarding a new culture method for Borrelia burgdorferi not approved for the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

In 2005, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding the use of Lyme disease tests whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established. Often these are laboratory-developed tests (also known as "home brew" tests) that are manufactured and used within a single laboratory and have not been cleared or approved by FDA. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a laboratory-developed test that uses a novel culture method to identify Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Patient specimens reportedly are incubated using a two-step pre-enrichment process, followed by immunostaining with or without polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Specimens that test positive by immunostaining or PCR are deemed "culture positive". Published methods and results for this laboratory-developed test have been reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis.

Evidence of clinical utility: an unmet need in molecular diagnostics for patients with cancer.

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development."

Similarities and differences in the oncology drug approval process between FDA and European Union with emphasis on in vitro companion diagnostics.

Drug approval [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or market authorization for the European Union's European Medicines Agency (EMA)] is the most significant regulatory milestone for any drug, as drugs can only be marketed after marketing approval by a health authority. This article focuses on the main regulatory aspects of the drug approval process in the European Union (EU) and the United States. Although the procedures, requirements, and timelines for drug approvals are different between the EU and the United States, several global harmonization efforts have been developed during the past few years to have more consistent regulatory procedures/outcomes in different parts of the world. One of the most different procedures/requirements among these regions is co-development, also known as in vitro companion diagnostic. In the United States, it is expected that for a drug that requires an in vitro diagnostic test to select the population to be treated, the companion diagnostic should be already/concomitantly approved by the FDA. In the EU, these requirements are not as stringent as in the United States. However, it is anticipated that in the very near future, legislation changes in the EU will lead to similar requirements for the companion diagnostics for EMA. In summary, although the principles, procedures, and requirements for drug approvals may differ between the United States and EMA, novel efforts to harmonize them are being considered and implemented, thereby leading to simpler global drug development. It is of outmost importance that drug developers understand and appreciate differences in regional regulations. Otherwise, lack of understanding may lead to rejection or delays in drug approvals for useful anticancer agents. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development."

Methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting in the context of legislative requirements for validation of analytical procedures for diagnostic applications.

Temperature gradient was first used to identify the methylation status of the DNA sequence over 10 years ago; however, the initially published protocol was shown to have poor analytical sensitivity. Recent developments in the field of DNA melting technologies, combined with the identification of procedures to overcome the sensitivity issues in the PCR-based methylation detection applications, led to the development of the methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting (MS-HRM) protocol. This protocol allows for highly sensitive detection of methylation levels in a labor- and cost-efficient fashion. Moreover, it enables investigation of methylation status of imprinted loci as well as identification of heterogeneous methylation. The MS-HRM technology is being increasingly applied in research laboratories and has a potential for future application in diagnostic settings. The focus of this article is to describe the development of the HRM technology for methylation analyses and evaluate the diagnostic applicability of the MS-HRM technology.

Evaluation of the clinical application of the ACCF/ASE appropriateness criteria for stress echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Society of Echocardiography appropriateness criteria for stress echocardiography (SE) in a single-center university hospital. METHODS: Indications were determined for consecutive studies by two reviewers and categorized as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS: Of 477 studies for which primary indications could be determined, 188 specifically related to university transplantation programs were excluded. Of the remaining 289 studies, 88% were addressed in the appropriateness criteria for SE. Of these, 71% were appropriate, 9% were uncertain, and 20% were inappropriate. Inappropriate studies were more likely to be ordered on younger patients and women and were less likely to be ordered by cardiologists. Abnormal results on SE were more frequent among appropriate than inappropriate studies. CONCLUSIONS: The appropriateness criteria for SE encompass and effectively characterize the majority of studies ordered in a single-center university hospital and appear to reasonably stratify the likelihood of abnormal results on SE. However, revisions will be required to fully capture and stratify appropriate clinical practice of SE.