Company: ADPT
Filing Date: 2025-03-03
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000950170-25-030913
Chunk: 88

Company: Adaptive Biotechnologies Corp
Filing Date: 2025-03-03
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 88
---
 test and could encompass our LDT testing service.

For each product we are developing that requires FDA premarket review or equivalent regulatory approval, the FDA or other regulatory authority may not grant clearance, authorization or premarket approval and failure to obtain necessary approvals for our future products and services would adversely affect our ability to grow our business. 

Before we begin to manufacture, label and market additional clinical diagnostic products for commercial diagnostic use in the U.S., we may be required to obtain either clearance, marketing authorization or approval from the FDA and state regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over such products, unless an exemption applies or, in the case of the FDA, it exercises its enforcement discretion and refrains from enforcing its requirements. For example, the FDA currently refrains from enforcing its medical device requirements with respect to LDTs, which the FDA considers to be a type of in vitro diagnostic test that is designed, manufactured and used within a single properly licensed laboratory. 

The process of obtaining PMA from the FDA is much more rigorous, costly, lengthy and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. In the PMA approval process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is safe and effective for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. Conversely, in the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed “predicate” device in order for the product to be cleared for marketing. To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics or if it has different technological characteristics as the predicate device, the proposed device must be as safe and effective as, and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than, the predicate device. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. For lower-risk devices that would otherwise automatically be placed into Class III, which require a PMA because no predicate device is available and the devices do not fall within an existing 510(k)-exempt classification, an applicant may submit a de novo request to down classify the device into Class II or Class I, which would not require a PMA. In the de novo process, the FDA must determine that general and special controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a device, which is low to moderate risk and has no predicate. In other words, the applicant must justify the “