Literature DB >> 25265047

Lack of publicly available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of implanted medical devices.

Diana Zuckerman1, Paul Brown1, Aditi Das1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Under the 510(k) process, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clears about 400 implanted medical devices that are considered moderate to high risk for market each year without requiring clinical testing. Instead, the FDA requires the applicant to provide scientific evidence that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to a device or devices already on the market (predicate devices). Companies are legally required to submit the evidence to the FDA and to make publicly available at least a summary of the evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the types of scientific evidence used to determine substantial equivalence, safety, or effectiveness for a representative sample of implanted medical devices; the number of predicates for each implant; and whether this evidence was publicly available.
DESIGN: Using FDA databases, we determined the device categories of the first 5 implanted medical devices cleared through the 510(k) process in 2008: cardiovascular, dental, general and plastic surgery, neurological, and orthopedic. We then identified the first 2 implanted medical devices approved in each of the 5 categories for each year from 2008 through 2012. The sample of 50 devices included, for example, total hip implants, vascular embolization devices, and surgical mesh. We also identified the 1105 predicates the manufacturers listed for these devices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each implanted medical device and its predicates, we determined whether clinical or nonclinical scientific evidence was provided to the FDA to support the claim of substantial equivalence and whether this evidence was publicly available. We also determined if safety or effectiveness data were provided.
RESULTS: Scientific data to support the claim of substantial equivalence were publicly available for 8 of the 50 newly cleared implants (16%) and 31 of their 1105 listed predicates (3%). Most of the evidence was nonclinical data; some of the data also evaluated safety or effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite the legal requirement that scientific evidence of substantial equivalence be publicly available for medical devices cleared by the FDA through the 501(k) process, such information is lacking for most implanted medical devices cleared between 2008 and 2012, as well as for their predicates.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25265047     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  12 in total

1.  A Major Shortcoming in the Public Health Legacy of the Obama Administration.

Authors:  Diana M Zuckerman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  The Complex Process of Using the Interconnected Knee Arthroplasty Device Clearance Pathway.

Authors:  Andrew Zhu; Xiaohan Ying; Christian A Pean; Neil P Sheth; Michael B Cross; Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle; Ajay Premkumar
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2022-06-20

3.  Software-Related Recalls of Health Information Technology and Other Medical Devices: Implications for FDA Regulation of Digital Health.

Authors:  Jay G Ronquillo; Diana M Zuckerman
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  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

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.  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

7.  The regulatory ancestral network of surgical meshes.

Authors:  Nasim Zargar; Andrew Carr
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Hydrophilic Polymer Embolism: Implications for Manufacturing, Regulation, and Postmarket Surveillance of Coated Intravascular Medical Devices.

Authors:  Rashi I Mehta; Rupal I Mehta
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.844

Review 9.  Regulatory approval of new medical devices: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Hani J Marcus; Christopher J Payne; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Adam P Marcus; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi; Dipankar Nandi
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-05-20

Review 10.  Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process.

Authors:  Carl J Heneghan; Ben Goldacre; Igho Onakpoya; Jeffrey K Aronson; Tom Jefferson; Annette Pluddemann; Kamal R Mahtani
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.