Literature DB >> 20038828

Premarket clinical evaluation of novel cardiovascular devices: quality analysis of premarket clinical studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration 2000-2007.

Daniel B Kramer1, Elias Mallis, Bram D Zuckerman, Barbara A Zimmerman, William H Maisel.   

Abstract

The quality of clinical data submitted by manufacturers to support Food and Drug Administration cardiovascular device premarket approval (PMA) applications varies widely and formal quality assessment has not been previously performed. This study evaluated all original cardiovascular device PMAs with Food and Drug Administration decisions between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007, to assess the quality of clinical investigations submitted by manufacturers. Effectiveness and safety end points were judged high quality if they were clearly defined and associated with a specific time point for analysis. Subject accounting was high quality if 90% or greater of the original cohort was accounted for at study conclusion. In total, 88 cardiovascular device PMAs (77.3% permanent implants), 132 clinical studies, 37,328 study subjects (age 61.0 +/- 14.5 years, 33.9% women, 86.3% white), and 29,408 device recipients were analyzed. All PMAs contained clinical data. Primary effectiveness end points, primary safety end points, and subject accounting were deemed high quality in 81.8%, 60.2%, and 77.3% of pivotal studies, respectively. Key cardiovascular comorbidities (coronary artery disease 51.1%, diabetes 36.6%, hypertension 35.2%, heart failure 37.5%, tobacco use 31.8%) and race (14.8%) were infrequently reported, and studies rarely included patients younger than 18 years of age (10.2% of studies). Poorly defined safety and effectiveness end points, poor patient accounting, and incomplete collection of important patient comorbidities make device safety and effectiveness assessments more challenging. Women, pediatric, and nonwhite populations are underrepresented in premarket cardiovascular clinical trials. Manufacturers, regulators, and the clinical community should collaborate to address these study shortcomings to ensure that patients are treated with reliable, safe, and clinically useful medical devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20038828     DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181ca8105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ther        ISSN: 1075-2765            Impact factor:   2.688


  15 in total

1.  How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval?

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Vinay K Rathi; Jonathan N Grauer; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Approval of high-risk medical devices in the US: implications for clinical cardiology.

Authors:  Benjamin N Rome; Daniel B Kramer; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Enrollment and monitoring of women in post-approval studies for medical devices mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Ellen Pinnow; Naomi Herz; Nilsa Loyo-Berrios; Michelle Tarver
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  Medical device postapproval safety monitoring: where does the United States stand?

Authors:  Prashant V Rajan; Daniel B Kramer; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2015-01-06

5.  FDA approval of cardiac implantable electronic devices via original and supplement premarket approval pathways, 1979-2012.

Authors:  Benjamin N Rome; Daniel B Kramer; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Regulatory science: Trust and transparency in clinical trials of medical devices.

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Donald E Cutlip
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 7.  Left to their own devices: breakdowns in United States medical device premarket review.

Authors:  Jonas Zajac Hines; Peter Lurie; Eunice Yu; Sidney Wolfe
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Diversity in Medical Device Clinical Trials: Do We Know What Works for Which Patients?

Authors:  Stephanie R Fox-Rawlings; Laura B Gottschalk; Laurén A Doamekpor; Diana M Zuckerman
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 9.  How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Shuai Xu; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 10.  Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health - a descriptive study.

Authors:  Laure Huot; Evelyne Decullier; Karen Maes-Beny; Francois R Chapuis
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.