Literature DB >> 24449317

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

Benjamin N Rome1, Daniel B Kramer2, Aaron S Kesselheim1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates high-risk medical devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, via the premarket approval (PMA) process, during which manufacturers submit clinical data demonstrating safety and effectiveness. Subsequent changes to approved high-risk devices are implemented via "supplements," which may not require additional clinical testing.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and characteristics of changes to CIEDs made through the PMA supplement process.
DESIGN: Using the FDA's PMA database, we reviewed all CIEDs approved as original PMAs or supplements from 1979 through 2012. For each supplement, we collected the date approved, type of supplement (panel-track, 180-day, real-time, special, and 30-day notice), and the nature of the changes. We calculated the number of supplements approved per PMA and analyzed trends relating to different supplement regulatory categories over time. For supplements approved via the 180-day regulatory pathway, which often involve significant design changes, from 2010-2012, we identified how often additional clinical data were collected.
RESULTS: From 1979-2012, the FDA approved 77 original and 5829 supplement PMA applications for CIEDs, with a median of 50 supplements per original PMA (interquartile range [IQR], 23-87). Excluding manufacturing changes that do not alter device design, the number of supplements approved each year was stable around a mean (SD) of 2.6 (0.9) supplements per PMA per year. Premarket approvals remained active via successive supplements over a median period of 15 years (IQR, 8-20), and 79% of the 77 original PMAs approved during our study period were the subject of at least 1 supplement in 2012. Thirty-seven percent of approved supplements involved a change to the device's design. Among 180-day supplements approved from 2010-2012, 23% (15/64) included new clinical data to support safety and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Many CIED models currently used by clinicians were approved via the PMA supplement process, not as original PMAs. Most new device models are deemed safe and effective without requiring new clinical data, reinforcing the importance of rigorous postapproval surveillance of these devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24449317      PMCID: PMC4142419          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.284986

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  11 in total

Review 1.  Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  John P DiMarco
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-11-06       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Learning from our mistakes? Testing new ICD technology.

Authors:  Robert G Hauser; Adrian K Almquist
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Testing new ICD technology.

Authors:  Mitchell J Shein; Daniel G Schultz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  An ICD lead advisory: a plea for more diligence and more data.

Authors:  G Neal Kay; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 1.976

5.  Unique device identification system. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2013-09-24

Review 6.  Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices.

Authors:  Sanket S Dhruva; Lisa A Bero; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-12-23       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Inclusion of comparative effectiveness data in high-risk cardiovascular device studies at the time of premarket approval.

Authors:  Connie E Chen; Sanket S Dhruva; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The 510(k) ancestry of a metal-on-metal hip implant.

Authors:  Brent M Ardaugh; Stephen E Graves; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process.

Authors:  Diana M Zuckerman; Paul Brown; Steven E Nissen
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-14

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

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Elias Mallis; Bram D Zuckerman; Barbara A Zimmerman; William H Maisel
Journal:  Am J Ther       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.688

View more
  21 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.  Regulatory reticence and medical devices.

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

Review 4.  Overview of High-Risk Medical Device Innovation in Gastroenterology from 2000 to 2014: Enhancing the Pipeline.

Authors:  Nasir Saleem; Shuai Xu
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  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

6.  Incentivizing research into the effectiveness of medical devices.

Authors:  Michael Drummond; Rosanna Tarricone; Aleksandra Torbica
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-12

Review 7.  FDA Policy and Cardiovascular Medicine.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 8.  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

9.  Proceedings from Heart Rhythm Society's emerging technologies forum, Boston, MA, May 12, 2015.

Authors:  Emily P Zeitler; Sana M Al-Khatib; David Slotwiner; Uday N Kumar; Paul Varosy; David R Van Wagoner; Gregory M Marcus; Fred M Kusumoto; Laura Blum
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.343

10.  Characteristics of Clinical Studies Used for US Food and Drug Administration Approval of High-Risk Medical Device Supplements.

Authors:  Sarah Y Zheng; Sanket S Dhruva; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.