Pharmaceutical and biotech researchers convened last week to discuss their latest work on targeting neurodegenerative diseases
With all the news this year alone on progress being made with diagnostic testing for Alzheimer’s disease, clinical laboratory professionals will be interested to know that drug discovery efforts to combat neurogenerative diseases are also at a heightened pitch.
Last week at the one-day Neuroimmunology in Drug Discovery forum in Boston, scientists learned about the latest advances in therapeutic research to better treat Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease. As the treatments advance, demand for them will increase, which goes hand-in-hand with medical lab testing to detect signs of these illnesses.
The concern is urgent. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noted that 10% of people age 65 and older have Alzheimer’s disease, and that number could double by 2050. The FDA recently cleared the first in vitro diagnostics device that tests blood to diagnose Alzheimer’s, and other IVD manufacturers and clinical labs are working on other Alzheimer’s tests, Dark Daily reported.
“It’s looking quite promising for NLRP3 inhibitors,” said Cheryl Leyns, PhD, associate principal scientist in discovery neuroscience at Merck Research Laboratories, in discussing how mutations of the NLRP3 protein can lead to neurodegenerative diseases. (Photo copyright: ELRIG.)
Much of the discussion at the Neuroimmunology in Drug Discovery forum centered on the idea that neuroinflammation—in other words, inflammation of the brain or spinal cord—starts well before neurodegenerative diseases arise. Neuroinflammation can accelerate Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders, said Cheryl Leyns, PhD, associate principal scientist, neuroimmunology, at Merck Research Laboratories in Boston, who spoke at the event.
From that perspective, drug discovery researchers are on the prowl for these early signs of future problems.
Leyns discussed NLRP3, a protein that aids the body’s inflammation process. A mutation of NLRP3 can lead to inflammatory problems, making the protein a prime target for researchers. “We have been interested, in the biopharma space, in the potential of NLRP3 inhibitors,” she noted.
Older Immune Systems Are Susceptible
While many in the public correctly associate Alzheimer’s with a person being outwardly older, a lesser-known aspect is that the body’s immune system also ages, becoming more susceptible over time to chronic inflammation.
Wailings’ assertion was not rhetorical. She pointed to numbers which showed scholarly research that involved the terms “inflammation,” “neurodegeneration,” and “aging” was only about 17% of the total amount of journal articles that addressed the first two terms, but which did not include “aging.”
As the pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical fields move aggressively forward to defend people against neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, clinical laboratory scientists should take comfort that diagnostic testing trends are solidly in the mix.
Therapeutic advances, along with increased options for testing, show promising signs that patients and their caregivers will have more tools to use in the battle against these illnesses.
Lumipulse G pTau217/ß-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio test measures blood biomarkers associated with the disease
Clinical laboratories could soon find themselves playing a significant role in Alzheimer’s care as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its first-ever clearance of a blood test to assist in diagnosing the cognitive disease.
The agency issued a 510(k) clearance for the Lumipulse G pTau217/ß-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio test from Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. The test is intended for “the early detection of amyloid plaques associated with Alzheimer’s disease in adult patients, aged 55 years and older, exhibiting signs and symptoms of the disease,” according to an FDA press release.
“Nearly seven million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, and this number is projected to rise to nearly 13 million,” said FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health Director Michelle Tarver, MD, PhD, in the press release. “Today’s clearance is an important step for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis, making it easier and potentially more accessible for US patients earlier in the disease.”
“Alzheimer’s disease impacts too many people, more than breast cancer and prostate cancer combined,” said FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, in the FDA press release.
“Knowing that 10% of people aged 65 and older have Alzheimer’s, and that by 2050 that number is expected to double, I am hopeful that new medical products such as this one will help patients,” said FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, in the FDA press release. (Photo copyright: Johns Hopkins University.)
Blood Protein Test Details
Fujirebio’s test calculates the ratio of two blood proteins, pTau217 and β-amyloid 1-42. “This ratio is correlated to the presence or absence of amyloid plaques in the patient’s brain, reducing the need for a PET scan,” the press release states.
The FDA said it has already authorized or cleared similar tests that use cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples obtained through an invasive spinal tap. “This new Lumipulse test only requires a simple blood draw, making it less invasive and much easier for patients to access,” the FDA said.
In granting the clearance, the agency looked at data from a clinical study of 499 adults displaying signs of cognitive impairment. Close to 92% of participants with positive test results had amyloid plaques as determined by amyloid PET scan or CSF test results. Approximately 97% with negative results from the Lumipulse test were also shown to be negative in the PET scan or CSF test. Fewer than 20% of the patients received indeterminate results, which would require additional testing.
The primary risks of the test are false positive or false negative results, the federal agency noted.
“Importantly, the Lumipulse G pTau217/ß-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio is not intended as a screening or stand-alone diagnostic test and other clinical evaluations or additional tests should be used for determining treatment options,” the FDA said.
‘Wild West’ Marketplace
In their reporting of this story,MedPage Today and the Associated Press both noted that some laboratory-developed tests can already measure plasma biomarkers associated with Alzheimer’s.
“But those tests aren’t reviewed by the FDA and generally aren’t covered by insurance,” the AP reported. “Doctors have also had little data to judge which tests are reliable and accurate, leading to an unregulated marketplace that some have called a ‘wild west.’”
Neurologist Richard S. Isaacson, MD, told CNN that he’s already using the test for research purposes. “It can provide better clarity into whether a person experiencing memory loss may have Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.
However, he cautioned that more research is needed to allow doctors to make best use of the test.
“I think the next step as a field is, we need to advance education about what these tests mean and what they don’t and who they should be used for,” he told CNN. “Because they mean different things in different people depending on their risk factors and whether they have symptoms. So, we’re still early.”
“The results must be interpreted in conjunction with other patient clinical information,” the FDA acknowledged in their press release.
Other Alzheimer’s Tests
The FDA said it reviewed the Lumipulse test through the 510(k) premarket notification pathway, in which the federal agency determines if a device is “substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.”
In this case, the agency found that the test is substantially equivalent to Fujirebio’s Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40), which measures the same proteins in CSF samples. The FDA authorized that device in 2022, according to a Fujirebio press release. That test uses Fujirebio’s automated Lumipulse G1200 instrument system.
Other companies including Roche, Eli Lilly, and C2N Diagnostics are also developing Alzheimer’s tests they intend to submit for FDA review, the AP reported.
The federal agency says it will mandate randomized, controlled clinical trials for vaccination of younger, healthy individuals
It’s been a confusing past few weeks in terms of what the general public’s access to COVID-19 vaccinations will be like in the future.
Public health experts have been verbally jousting with the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about moves its health officials made recently regarding the vaccines. This could put clinical laboratories on the front lines to help determine whether COVID cases—particularly severe ones—eventually rise as a result.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, who leads the agency’s vaccine oversight, announced on May 20 that the agency will require randomized, controlled clinical trials before approving COVID vaccines for healthy individuals under age 65.
“While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe COVID-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months,” Makary and Prasad wrote in NEJM.
Under the new framework, they noted, the agency expects that it will continue to approve vaccines for adults over 65 as well as younger people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
The range of diseases is “vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression,” they wrote. “Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.”
In their NEJM commentary, FDA commissioner Martin Makary, MD (left), and Vinay Prasad, MD (right), wrote, “Moving forward, the FDA will adopt the following COVID-19 vaccination regulatory framework: On the basis of immunogenicity—proof that a vaccine can generate antibody titers in people.” (Photo copyrights: Wikimedia Commons.)
Former CDC APIC Member Pushes Back
The announcement drew criticism from public health and medical experts.
“The FDA guidance presented in the NEJM was not released in the Federal Register, did not invite comment, and provided only a general outline for COVID-19 vaccine licensure,” wrote pediatrician and vaccinologist Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, in a commentary for STAT. Edwards is a former member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes vaccine recommendations to the agency.
On June 9, in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he’s removing all 17 current members of ACIP.
“The FDA mandate is to ensure safe and effective vaccines based on the clinical studies performed, but not to develop specific recommendations for their use,” Edwards added. “Providing recommendations on vaccine use for the civilian population is the mandate of the ACIP.”
Edwards contended that extensive data is already available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. She stated that “there is no precedent for mandating continued placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials for vaccines that have already been licensed.”
New Policy Announcement Raises Questions
The New York Times notes that many questions remain about the specifics of the new policy and how broadly the vaccines will be available.
A likely scenario, the paper reported, is that health insurers will play a role as “gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.” Without insurance coverage, people would likely pay approximately $140 per shot out of pocket.
This stands in contrast to European countries, where outreach campaigns target specific populations based on public health recommendations. according to Forbes. However, “in virtually all instances, COVID-19 vaccines can be gotten free of charge across Europe regardless of health or age status,” the article notes.
In their NEJM commentary, Prasad and Makary noted that adoption of the annual COVID-19 booster shot is already low. The CDC reported that 23% of Americans 18 and older received vaccinations in the 2024-2025 season, up slightly from 21.6% in 2023-2024.
Kennedy Steps In
On May 27, Kennedy announced in a video on X that the CDC would remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. Previously, the CDC recommended the vaccine for everyone ages six months and older.
Kennedy was joined in the video by Makary and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya MD, PhD.
However, CDC staffers were “blindsided” by the announcement, NPR reported, citing an agency official who requested anonymity.
“Hours after the post on X, CDC staffers received a directive from Secretary Kennedy—dated May 19, but sent May 27—rescinding the department’s 2022 acceptance of the CDC’s recommendations for the use of COVID shots in children and during pregnancy,” NPR reported.
It now appears that HHS has at least partially backtracked on Kennedy’s announcement.
The CDC’s immunization schedule now states that vaccination of healthy children should be a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” between the doctor and parent or patient.
“After confusing, mixed messages from leaders at HHS earlier this week, we are relieved to see today that the CDC updated its schedules for child and adolescent immunizations to allow families to maintain the choice to immunize their children against COVID in consultation with their doctor,” American Academy of Pediatrics president Susan Kressly said in a statement from the organization.
In a June 1 interview with the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Makary confirmed that the recommendation to vaccinate “should be with the patient and their doctor.”
However, he also criticized ACIP as a “kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them.”
However, effective communication can bring more harmony to medical lab managers and scientists when it comes to compliance
Depending on how lab professionals view it, clinical laboratory regulations can be characterized as a series of checklists to fill out or an opportunity to grow an organization.
Leaning into the latter option will preserve regulatory compliance while also ensuring the operational health of the clinical laboratory.
At the Lab Manager Leadership Summit, Kelly VanBemmel, MS, MB(ASCP)CM (above) pressed attendees to open the lines of communication between bench scientists and lab managers when it comes to clinical laboratory regulations. (Photo copyright: Scott Wallask.)
‘There’s a Gap’ in How Both Sides View Regulatory Compliance
VanBemmel spent her presentation aiming to bridge the rift between how bench scientists look at clinical laboratory regulations compared to the views of medical lab managers.
“There’s a gap between how staff experience regulations and how management does,” she noted. “Staff typically think of compliance as a checklist to do their jobs.” Managers, however, need to understand a wider compliance picture. She illustrated her point by comparing views on the following regulatory bodies.
Staff understand that the FDA clears tests and devices for use in non-research environments, though not all consumables or equipment are in that setting.
Managers understand that the FDA develops rules and guidance for CLIA complexity categorization.
Communication Leads to Common Ground with Clinical Laboratory Regulations
Given the above differences among managers and staff, VanBemmel explained that both sides must frequently talk to each other to fill in the missing details.
“When you’re in the thick of regulations, communication becomes critical,” she said.
For example, bench staff may feel it is solely their manager’s responsibility to comply with clinical laboratory regulations. Savvy lab leaders will point out non-compliant conditions—such as diagnostic analyzer malfunctions and sample cross contamination—over which bench staff have direct control, helping workers better understand their responsibility when it comes to compliance.
On the other hand, lazy communication from managers to their bench scientists can stunt compliance efforts. She recalled a prior supervisor who often answered questions about regulations by asking: What does the standard operation procedure state?
“That answer wasn’t particularly helpful,” VanBemmel recalled. “That made me think that my supervisor didn’t understand nuance.”
Thorough communication builds greater trust, and seasoned clinical laboratory professionals of all ranks will quickly recognize the compliance benefits when the worker-manager relationship gels.
Clinical laboratories should closely watch the Trump administration as it contemplates a court appeal, a revised LDT rulemaking, or abandoning the rule altogether
With a US District Court judge’s decision to vacate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rule on laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), perhaps the most intriguing aspect for clinical laboratories is what the next move will be by the federal government.
It’s hard to predict whether the administration of President Donald Trump will either appeal the judge’s decision, direct the FDA to come up with a new version of the rule that passes legal muster, or simply back off further scrutiny of LDTs.
Let’s look more closely at the options for clinical laboratory professionals to monitor.
US District Court Judge Sean Jordan, JD (above), vacated the federal Food and Drug Administration’s final rule to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) on March 31, 2025. In a lawsuit, the Association for Molecular Pathologists and the American Clinical Laboratory Association accused the FDA of overstepping its legal authority in issuing the LDT rule in 2024. The outcome of this ruling will affect clinical laboratories’ future development their own tests. (Photo copyright: Jackson Walker LLP.)
Will the Trump Administration Appeal the LDT Decision?
The FDA’s final rule—which came out in 2024 and was about to hit its first compliance milestone on May 6, 2025—had been discussed for at least 10 years prior, covering multiple presidential administrations. Because the final rule was published by the FDA under former President Joe Biden, it surprised some observers to see Trump’s Department of Justice defend the FDA’s right to implement the rule during oral arguments in February before Judge Sean Jordan in US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
That hearing was the culmination of a combined lawsuit from American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) challenging the LDT rule. The suit sought summary judgment on the matter, which Jordan granted on March 31 in his decision to vacate the FDA’s rule.
“The Court vacates and sets aside, in its entirety, the FDA’s final rule titled Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests,” Jordan wrote. “The Court remands this matter to the secretary of Health and Human Services for further consideration.”
Trump’s legal team set a precedent early in the president’s second term to aggressively challenge any court decisions that buck his authority. From that perspective, an appeal of the LDT judgment seems probable, although there is no official word yet about that.
Trump ran on an anti-regulatory, smaller government platform. In that sense, the DOJ’s defense of the FDA’s standing to carry out the LDT rule was a surprise.
Will the FDA Create a Revised Version of the LDT Rule?
The court sent the rule back to the FDA, which leaves the door open for the agency to construct and issue a new rule.
The clinical laboratory industry argued that LDTs should not be classified as medical devices, which the rule instead emphasized. That could be an area where a new version of the rule bends.
Congress could also step in here. For many years, a proposed bill known as the VALID Act (formally the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act) was filed in the House of Representatives to increase LDT oversight.
But then—after the FDA’s LDT rule came out—the VALID Act looked to be the lesser of two evils to lab professionals. It’s possible labs and lawmakers could work out a new version of the VALID Act to avoid another potentially onerous FDA-issued rulemaking.
Will Trump and the FDA Do Nothing?
Even though it would go against the current pattern of challenging court decisions, the Trump administration could simply step back and choose to do nothing with the FDA’s vacated rule.
In that case, presumably LDTs would continue to be overseen by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). The medical lab industry has long preferred to see CLIA reform as the pathway to regulating LDTs in the future rather than formal FDA involvement. The FDA referred to this arrangement as “enforcement discretion,” as LDT oversight has always been on the books at the FDA, but the agency deferred to CLIA for many years.
Of related interest was a news release last week from the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announcing a sweeping number of layoffs under its individual agencies. The FDA is slated to lose 3,500 employees, although the “reduction will not affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors,” HHS noted in a fact sheet.
Revisiting an LDT rule that will require more reviewers and inspectors seems at odds with a shrinking FDA.
Clinical Labs Must Monitor the Near-term Future of LDTs
After coming out ahead in one of the biggest court showdowns in clinical lab history, medical laboratory scientists and industry leaders now must keep their eyes on the various avenues that LDT regulation could head down in the near future.
Watch for further analysis of the business implications of this court decision in The Dark Report.
