Literature DB >> 26262798

Characteristics of Clinical Studies Conducted Over the Total Product Life Cycle of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices Receiving FDA Premarket Approval in 2010 and 2011.

Vinay K Rathi1, Harlan M Krumholz2, Frederick A Masoudi3, Joseph S Ross4.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves high-risk medical devices, those that support or sustain human life or present potential unreasonable risk to patients, via the Premarket Approval (PMA) pathway. The generation of clinical evidence to understand device safety and effectiveness is shifting from predominantly premarket to continual study throughout the total product life cycle.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical evidence generated for high-risk therapeutic devices over the total product life cycle. DESIGN AND
SETTING: All clinical studies of high-risk therapeutic devices receiving initial market approval via the PMA pathway in 2010 and 2011 identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents as of October 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Studies were characterized by type (pivotal, studies that served as the basis of FDA approval; FDA-required postapproval studies [PAS]; or manufacturer/investigator-initiated); premarket or postmarket; status (completed, ongoing, or terminated/unknown); and design features, including enrollment, comparator, and longest duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up.
RESULTS: In 2010 and 2011, 28 high-risk therapeutic devices received initial marketing approval via the PMA pathway. We identified 286 clinical studies of these devices: 82 (28.7%) premarket and 204 (71.3%) postmarket, among which there were 52 (18.2%) nonpivotal premarket studies, 30 (10.5%) pivotal premarket studies, 33 (11.5%) FDA-required PAS, and 171 (59.8%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies. Six of 33 (18.2%) PAS and 20 of 171 (11.7%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies were reported as completed. No postmarket studies were identified for 5 (17.9%) devices; 3 or fewer were identified for 13 (46.4%) devices overall. Median enrollment was 65 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 25-111), 241 patients (IQR, 147-415), 222 patients (IQR, 119-640), and 250 patients (IQR, 60-800) for nonpivotal premarket, pivotal, FDA-required PAS, and manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies, respectively. Approximately half of all studies used no comparator (pivotal: 13/30 [43.3%]; completed postmarket: 16/26 [61.5%]; ongoing postmarket: 70/153 [45.8%]). Median duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up was 3.0 months (IQR, 3.0-12.0), 9.0 months (IQR, 0.3-12.0), and 12.0 months (IQR, 7.0-24.0) for pivotal, completed postmarket, and ongoing postmarket studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among high-risk therapeutic devices approved via the FDA PMA pathway, total product life cycle evidence generation varied in both the number and quality of premarket and postmarket studies, with approximately 13% of initiated postmarket studies completed between 3 and 5 years after FDA approval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26262798     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.8761

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


  29 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.  Analysis of the safety evaluation for premarketing clinical trials of hemodialyzer and of postmarketing safety reports of hemodialyzer in Japan and the US: insights into the construction of a sophisticated premarketing evaluation.

Authors:  Masami Saito; Kiyotaka Iwasaki
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 1.731

3.  Real-World Evidence: Promise and Peril For Medical Product Evaluation.

Authors:  Sanket S Dhruva; Joseph S Ross; Nihar R Desai
Journal:  P T       Date:  2018-08

4.  Clinical Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Clearance of Novel Therapeutic Devices via the De Novo Pathway Between 2011 and 2019.

Authors:  James L Johnston; Sanket S Dhruva; Joseph S Ross; Vinay K Rathi
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Practical Improvements for Medical Device Evaluation.

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Can machine learning complement traditional medical device surveillance? A case study of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Jonathan Bates; Craig S Parzynski; Joseph G Akar; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar R Desai; James V Freeman; Ginger M Gamble; Richard Kuntz; Shu-Xia Li; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Isuru Ranasinghe; Richard E Shaw; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2017-08-16

7.  Quantifying the utilization of medical devices necessary to detect postmarket safety differences: A case study of implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  Jonathan Bates; Craig S Parzynski; Sanket S Dhruva; Andreas Coppi; Richard Kuntz; Shu-Xia Li; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Frederick A Masoudi; Richard E Shaw; Frederick Warner; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  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

9.  Age at onset in genetic prion disease and the design of preventive clinical trials.

Authors:  Eric Vallabh Minikel; Sonia M Vallabh; Margaret C Orseth; Jean-Philippe Brandel; Stéphane Haïk; Jean-Louis Laplanche; Inga Zerr; Piero Parchi; Sabina Capellari; Jiri Safar; Janna Kenny; Jamie C Fong; Leonel T Takada; Claudia Ponto; Peter Hermann; Tobias Knipper; Christiane Stehmann; Tetsuyuki Kitamoto; Ryusuke Ae; Tsuyoshi Hamaguchi; Nobuo Sanjo; Tadashi Tsukamoto; Hidehiro Mizusawa; Steven J Collins; Roberto Chiesa; Ignazio Roiter; Jesús de Pedro-Cuesta; Miguel Calero; Michael D Geschwind; Masahito Yamada; Yosikazu Nakamura; Simon Mead
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 9.910

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.