Literature DB >> 24597558

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

Corinna Sorenson1, Michael Drummond.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Recent debates and events have brought into question the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the United States and Europe to ensure their performance, safety, and quality. This article provides a comparative analysis of medical device regulation in the two jurisdictions, explores current reforms to improve the existing systems, and discusses additional actions that should be considered to fully meet this aim. Medical device regulation must be improved to safeguard public health and ensure that high-quality and effective technologies reach patients.
METHODS: We explored and analyzed medical device regulatory systems in the United States and Europe in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents.
FINDINGS: The two regulatory systems differ in their mandate and orientation, organization, pre- and postmarket evidence requirements, and transparency of process. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions face similar challenges for ensuring that only safe and effective devices reach the market, monitoring real-world use, and exchanging pertinent information on devices with key users such as clinicians and patients. To address these issues, reforms have recently been introduced or debated in the United States and Europe that are principally focused on strengthening regulatory processes, enhancing postmarket regulation through more robust surveillance systems, and improving the traceability and monitoring of devices. Some changes in premarket requirements for devices are being considered.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the current reforms address some of the outstanding challenges in device regulation, additional steps are needed to improve existing policy. We examine a number of actions to be considered, such as requiring high-quality evidence of benefit for medium- and high-risk devices; moving toward greater centralization and coordination of regulatory approval in Europe; creating links between device identifier systems and existing data collection tools, such as electronic health records; and fostering increased and more effective use of registries to ensure safe postmarket use of new and existing devices.
© 2014 Milbank Memorial Fund.

Entities:  

Keywords:  comparative studies; health care reform; medical devices; regulation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24597558      PMCID: PMC3955380          DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Milbank Q        ISSN: 0887-378X            Impact factor:   4.911


  21 in total

1.  The saga of Poly Implant Prosthese breast implants.

Authors:  Carl Heneghan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-01-11

2.  Inclusion of training patients in US Food and Drug Administration premarket approval cardiovascular device studies.

Authors:  Connie E Chen; Sanket S Dhruva; Lisa A Bero; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-11-22

Review 3.  Review of the processes for FDA oversight of drugs, medical devices, and combination products.

Authors:  Burgunda V Sweet; Ann K Schwemm; Dawn M Parsons
Journal:  J Manag Care Pharm       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb

4.  Commentary: Evaluating and regulating device therapy.

Authors:  Nick Freemantle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-13

5.  Medical device recalls and transparency in the UK.

Authors:  Matthew Thompson; Carl Heneghan; Matthew Billingsley; Deborah Cohen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-13

6.  Commentary: International collaboration needed on device clinical standards.

Authors:  Alan G Fraser; Mitchell W Krucoff; Ralph G Brindis; Michel Komajda; Sidney C Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-13

7.  Commentary: The risk of over-regulation.

Authors:  C Di Mario; S James; D Dudek; M Sabate; M Degertekin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-13

8.  Commentary: Use of registries to investigate the past and develop the future.

Authors:  Stefan James; Jean-Claude Daubert; Frans Van de Werf
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-05-13

9.  Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union.

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Shuai Xu; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  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
View more
  23 in total

1.  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

2.  Regulatory reticence and medical devices.

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

Review 3.  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

4.  Incentivizing research into the effectiveness of medical devices.

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

5.  Pivotal clinical trials of novel ophthalmic drugs and medical devices: retrospective observational study, 2002-2012.

Authors:  Jenny Hwang; Thomas J Hwang; Joseph B Ciolino
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  How can we improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents in hospitals? A qualitative study of physicians and registered nurses.

Authors:  Julie Polisena; Anna Gagliardi; Tammy Clifford
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Characteristics of pivotal trials and FDA review of innovative devices.

Authors:  Joshua P Rising; Ben Moscovitch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Time Series Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Capsule Endoscopy between the Premarketing and Postmarketing Settings: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kazuo Iijima; Mitsuo Umezu; Kiyotaka Iwasaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Comparison of rates of safety issues and reporting of trial outcomes for medical devices approved in the European Union and United States: cohort study.

Authors:  Thomas J Hwang; Elisaveta Sokolov; Jessica M Franklin; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-06-28

10.  A time-series study of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: premature adoption?

Authors:  Kian Nian Lew; Gianni D Angelini; William Hollingworth
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2016-01-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.