Literature DB >> 21321283

Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process.

Diana M Zuckerman1, Paul Brown, Steven E Nissen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unlike prescription drugs, medical devices are reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using 2 alternative regulatory standards: (1) premarket approval (PMA), which requires clinical testing and inspections; or (2) the 510(k) process, which requires that the device be similar to a device already marketed (predicate device). The second standard is intended for devices that the FDA deems to involve low or moderate risk.
METHODS: We analyzed the FDA's high-risk List of Device Recalls from 2005 through 2009. Using FDA data, we determined whether the recalled devices were approved by the more rigorous (PMA) process, the 510(k) process, or were exempt from FDA review.
RESULTS: There were 113 recalls from 2005 through 2009 that the FDA determined could cause serious health problems or death. Only 21 of the 113 devices had been approved through the PMA process (19%). Eighty were cleared through the 510(k) process (71%), and an additional 8 were exempt from any FDA regulation (7%). Cardiovascular devices comprised the largest recall category, with 35 of the high-risk recalls (31%); two-thirds were cleared by the 510(k) process (66%; n = 23). Fifty-one percent of the high-risk recalls were in 5 other device categories: general hospital, anesthesiology, clinical chemistry, neurology, or ophthalmology.
CONCLUSIONS: Most medical devices recalled for life-threatening or very serious hazards were originally cleared for market using the less stringent 510(k) process or were considered so low risk that they were exempt from review (78%). These findings suggest that reform of the regulatory process is needed to ensure the safety of medical devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21321283     DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  43 in total

1.  Rethinking medical device regulation.

Authors:  Carl Heneghan; Mathew Thompson
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 5.344

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

Review 3.  Electrophysiology devices and the regulatory approval process within the U.S. FDA and abroad.

Authors:  Kimberly A Selzman; Hetal Patel; Kenneth Cavanaugh
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 1.900

4.  FDA regulation of cardiovascular devices and opportunities for improvement.

Authors:  Sanket S Dhruva; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective.

Authors:  Corinna Sorenson; Michael Drummond
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.911

6.  Regulatory reticence and medical devices.

Authors:  Daniel M Fox; Diana M Zuckerman
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 7.  [Assessment of the benefit of medical devices in surgical practice. Problems and possible solutions].

Authors:  D Seidel; P Braß; N Sehnke; V Jakob; W Eglmeier; E A M Neugebauer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Transparency and Dermatologic Device Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Authors:  Harib H Ezaldein; Jeffrey F Scott; Emily S Yin; Alessandra Ventura; Nicholaas P DeRuyter; David J Leffell
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 10.282

9.  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

Review 10.  The Role of the FDA and Regulatory Approval of New Devices for Diabetes Care.

Authors:  Shelley A Jazowski; Aaron N Winn
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 4.810

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.