Thomas J Hwang1, Aaron S Kesselheim2, Florence T Bourgeois3. 1. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 2. Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; 3. Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts florence.bourgeois@childrens.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical devices can be useful in a variety of diseases, but few devices have been specifically approved for use in children. The 2007 Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act was passed to stimulate pediatric device development. The current state of trial evidence underpinning the approval of pediatric devices remains poorly described. METHODS: We identified all high-risk (ie, class III) devices approved through the premarket approval or humanitarian device exemption pathways for therapeutic use in children between 2008 and 2011. We collected key information on clinical trial design (randomization, blinding, controls, and types of end points) as well as age distribution of trial participants. We also identified US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated postmarketing trials. RESULTS: Twenty-two devices were approved for use in children via the premarket approval pathway and 3 via the humanitarian device exemption pathway. Twenty-two (88%) qualified as pediatric despite minimum approval ages of ≥18 years (the FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health considers patients 18-21 years old as pediatric). Most devices were approved on the basis of nonrandomized (59%), open-label (68%) studies with surrogate effectiveness end points (86%). Overall, 21 (84%) devices were not studied in any patients <18 years of age. Postmarketing studies were mandated by the FDA for 19 (76%) devices, although only 3 (18%) required enrollment of pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most high-risk pediatric devices are approved on the basis of trials in patients ≥18 years old, with few pediatric patients exposed to the devices before market availability. Few postmarketing studies require additional study in pediatric patients.
BACKGROUND: Medical devices can be useful in a variety of diseases, but few devices have been specifically approved for use in children. The 2007 Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act was passed to stimulate pediatric device development. The current state of trial evidence underpinning the approval of pediatric devices remains poorly described. METHODS: We identified all high-risk (ie, class III) devices approved through the premarket approval or humanitarian device exemption pathways for therapeutic use in children between 2008 and 2011. We collected key information on clinical trial design (randomization, blinding, controls, and types of end points) as well as age distribution of trial participants. We also identified US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated postmarketing trials. RESULTS: Twenty-two devices were approved for use in children via the premarket approval pathway and 3 via the humanitarian device exemption pathway. Twenty-two (88%) qualified as pediatric despite minimum approval ages of ≥18 years (the FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health considers patients 18-21 years old as pediatric). Most devices were approved on the basis of nonrandomized (59%), open-label (68%) studies with surrogate effectiveness end points (86%). Overall, 21 (84%) devices were not studied in any patients <18 years of age. Postmarketing studies were mandated by the FDA for 19 (76%) devices, although only 3 (18%) required enrollment of pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most high-risk pediatric devices are approved on the basis of trials in patients ≥18 years old, with few pediatric patients exposed to the devices before market availability. Few postmarketing studies require additional study in pediatric patients.
Authors: Aaron V Kaplan; Donald S Baim; John J Smith; David A Feigal; Michael Simons; David Jefferys; Thomas J Fogarty; Richard E Kuntz; Martin B Leon Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-06-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Frank Cecchin; Joseph Atallah; Edward P Walsh; John K Triedman; Mark E Alexander; Charles I Berul Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2010-08-20
Authors: Joseph Atallah; Christopher C Erickson; Frank Cecchin; Anne M Dubin; Ian H Law; Mitchell I Cohen; Martin J Lapage; Bryan C Cannon; Terrence U H Chun; Vicki Freedenberg; Marcin Gierdalski; Charles I Berul Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Natalie Batey; Caroline Henry; Shalabh Garg; Michael Wagner; Atul Malhotra; Michel Valstar; Thomas Smith; Don Sharkey Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.756
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