Left to their own devices: Breakdowns in United States medical device premarket review

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 7, 2010, Pages

  Hines, Jonas Zajac ^a   Lurie, Peter ^a   Yu, Eunice ^a   Wolfe, Sidney ^a  

^a Public Citizen Health Research Group   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AORTA BALLOON; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; MATERIALS TESTING; MEDICAL APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; SAFETY; STANDARD; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; UNITED STATES; VAGUS NERVE STIMULATION; APPARATUS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; DRUG APPROVAL; EQUIPMENT; HISTORY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; REVIEW;

DEVICE APPROVAL; DRUG APPROVAL; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 77955016199     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000280     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. (2006) Definition of a medical device. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 1 321(h) (2006 ed.).
2. Ramsey SD, Luce BR, Deyo R, Franklin G (1998) The limited state of technology assessment for medical devices: facing the issues. Am JManag Care 4 Spec No: SP188-199.
3. Roland G, Donahoe G, (2009) Estimates of medical device spending in the United States, 1989-2006. Available: http://www.advamed.org/NR/rdonlyres/6ADAAA5B-BA37-469E-817B-3D61DEC4E7C8/0/King2009FINALREPORT52909.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1983) Elevated risk of pelvic inflammatory disease among women using the Dalkon Shield. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 32: 221-222.
5. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (1990) The Bjork-Shiley heart valve: earn as you learn; Shiley Inc.'s breach of the honor system and FDA's failure in medical device regulation: a staff report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Comm. Print 1990.
6. Schultz D, (2007) Statement on Medtronic's Voluntary Market Suspension of Their Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator Leads. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www. fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ 2007/ucm109007.htm. Accessed January 16, 2010.
7. Maisel WH (2004) Medical device regulation: an introduction for the practicing physician. Ann Intern Med 140: 296-302.
8. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2009) Device classification. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/default.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
9. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (1986) Guidance on the CDRH premarket notification review program. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) Memorandum #K86-3. Available: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ ucm081383.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
10. (2006) Substantial equivalence defined. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, Publication No. 21 USC 1 360c(i)(1) (2006 ed.).
11. Government Accountability Office (2009) Medical devices: FDA should take steps to ensure that high-risk device types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. GAO-09-190. Available: http://www. gao.gov/new.items/d09190.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
12. (2006) Grounds for refusing application; approval of application; substantial evidence defined. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, Publication No. 21 USC 1 355(d) (2006 ed.).
13. (2006) Classes of devices. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 1 360c(a) (2006 ed.).
14. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (1998) Providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/ucm072008.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
15. (1995) Statement regarding the demonstrations of effectiveness of human drug products and devices. Federal register. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 60 FR 39180- 39181 (August 1, 1995).
16. Government Accountability Office (2006) Medicare durable medical equipment: class III devices do not warrant a distinct annual payment update. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. GAO-06-62. Available: http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d0662.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
17. (2009) Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug; uncontrolled studies or partially controlled studies. Code of federal regulations. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 CFR 1 314.126(e) (April 2009 ed.).
18. (2009) Medical device classification procedures; determination of safety and effectiveness; absence of well-controlled investigations. Code of federal regulations. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 CFR 1 860.7(e)(2) (April 2009 ed.).
19. Rush AJ, Marangell LB, Sackeim HA, George MS, Brannan SK, et al. (2005) Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a randomized, controlled acute phase trial. Biol Psychiatry 58: 347-354.
20. United States Senate, Committee on Finance (2006) Review of the FDA's approval process for the vagus nerve stimulation therapy system for treatment-resistant depression. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. S. Prt. 109-45. Available: http://finance.senate. gov/press/Gpress/02_2006%20report.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
21. Coverage Analysis Group (2007) Decision memo for vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of resistant depression (TRD). Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo. asp?from2=viewdecisionmemo.asp&id=%20195. & Accessed January 17, 2010.
22. Lurie P, Stine N, Wolfe SM (2006) Letter requesting that Medicare deny reimbursement for Cyberonics' vagus nerve stimulation device for treatment-resistant depression. Washington, DC: Health Research Group, Public Citizen. Available: http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7456. Accessed January 17, 2010.
23. Food and Drug Administration (2008) Office of device evaluation: annual report fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007: key performance indices. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDRH/CDRHReports/ucm126933.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
24. (2006) Withdrawal and temporary suspension of approval of application. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 1 360e(e) (2006 ed.).
25. CDRH Office of Device Evaluation (1998) Guidance for industry: general/specific intended use. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm073944.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
26. Medicare and Medicaid programs; quarterly listing of program issuances and coverage decisions; third quarter 1995 (1996) Federal register. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 61 FR 15491-15504 (April 8, 1996).
27. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Review of the Regen Menaflex: departures from processes, procedures, and Practices leave the basis for a review decision in question, preliminary report. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/UCM183642.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
28. ReGen Biologics (2005) ReGen Biologics to present at the pacific growth equities life science conference in San Francisco on June 6, 2005 [press release]. Available: http://www.regenbio. com/usa/en/pressroom/594/. Accessed January 17, 2010.
29. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2008) FDA summary for the Orthopedic and Rehabilitative Devices Panel for the ReGen Collagen Scaffold. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www. fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/briefing/2008- 4400b1-01FDA%20Summary%20and%20Questions% 20.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
30. Hines J, Lurie P, (2008) Testimony before FDA on Collagen Scaffold medical device. Washington, DC: Health Research Group, Public Citizen. Available: http://www.citizen.org/publications/ release.cfm?ID=7620. Accessed January 17, 2010.
31. (2008) Premarket notification; ReGen Menaflex Collagen Scaffold (MCS). Hackensack, NJ: ReGen Biologics. Available: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/briefing/2008-4400b1-01%20510(k)%20Intro% 20K082079.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
32. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2008) Transcript of the Orthopedic and Rehabilitative Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee: part 1. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/ transcripts/2008-4400t01.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
33. Coverage Analysis Group (2010) Proposed Decision Memo for Collagen Meniscus Implant. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available: http://www.cms.hhs. gov/mcd/viewdraftdecisionmemo.asp?id=235. Accessed March 25, 2010.
34. (2006) Different technological characteristics. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, Publication No. 21 USC 1 360c(i)(1)(A)(ii) (2006 ed).
35. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2007) FDA Summary for meeting of the Neurological Devices Panel for Neurostar TMS system. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4273b1_01- FDAExecutiveSummary.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
36. O'Reardon JP, Solvason HB, Janicak PG, Sampson S, Isenberg KE, et al. (2007) Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: a multisite randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry 62: 1208-1216.
37. Lurie P, Park S, (2007) Testimony at meeting on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, Duraseal and vagus nerve stimulation. Washington, DC: Health Research Group, Public Citizen. Available: http://www.citizen.org/publications/ release.cfm?ID=7499. Accessed January 17, 2010.
38. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2007) Transcript of the Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/transcripts/2007-4273t1.rtf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
39. (2006) Evaluation of automatic class III designation. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 1 360c(f)(2) (2006 ed.).
40. Lisanby SH, Husain MM, Rosenquist PB, Maixner D, Gutierrez R, et al. (2009) Daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the acute treatment of major depression: clinical predictors of outcome in a multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial. Neuropsychopharmacology 34: 522-534.
41. Hines JZ, Lurie P, Wolfe SM (2009) Reply to Lisanby et al. Post hoc analysis does not establish effectiveness of rTMS for depression. Neuropsychopharmacology 34: 2053-2054.
42. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2009) 510(k) device database [searched 'CLEARED FOR MARKETING AUTOMATIC CLASS III DESIGNAT (AN)' under 'Decision' field]. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
43. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2008) 510(k) substantial equivalence determination decision summary for Pathwork Tissue of Origin Test. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cdrh_docs/reviews/K080896.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
44. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2005) 510(k) substantial equivalence determination decision summary for BioPlex 2200 Medical Decision Support Software on the BioPlex 2200 Multi- Analyte Detection System. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www. accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/K043341. pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
45. Government Accountability Office [formerly known as the United States General Accounting Office] (1988) Medical devices: FDA's 510(k) operations could be improved. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. GAO/PEMD-88-14. Available: http://archive. gao.gov/d16t6/136821.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
46. (1988) General and plastic surgery devices; general provisions and classifications of 51 devices. Federal register. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 53 FR 23856-23877 (June 24, 1988).
47. (2009) Establishment registration and device listing for manufacturers and initial importers of devices; exemption from premarket notification. Code of federalegulations. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 CFR 1 807.85(b)(1) (April 2009 ed.).
48. CDRH Office of Device Evaluation (1994) Memorandum: preamendments Class III strategy. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ ucm081251.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
49. (2006) Revision of class III preamendments devices classifications. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 1360e(i) (2006 ed.).
50. (2009) Order for certain class III devices; submission of safety and effectiveness information. Federal register. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 74 FR 16214-16217 (April 9, 2009).
51. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2009) 510(k) device database [searched 'DSP' under 'Product Code' field]. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/ cfPMN/pmn.cfm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
52. Cohen M, Urban P, Christenson JT, Joseph DL, Freedman RJ, Jr., et al. (2003) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in US and non-US centres: results of the Benchmark Registry. Eur Heart J 24: 1763-1770.
53. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2009) Medical device classification database [searched 'unclassified' under 'Device Class' field; searched '510(k)' under 'Submission Type' field]. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
54. CDRH Office of the Center Director (2001) Resolving scientific disputes concerning the regulation of medical devices: a guide to use of the medical devices dispute esolution panel. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ ucm110237.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
55. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2001) Summary of safety and effectiveness data for GYNECARE INTERGEL adhesion prevention solution. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.accessdata. fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/P990015b.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
56. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2003) Urgent global market withdrawal: GYNECARE INTERGEL Adhesion Prevention solution voluntarily withdrawn from the market by GYNECARE worldwide. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www. fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm170010.htm. Accessed January 16, 2010.
57. (2006) Least burdensome approach for 510(k) devices with different technological characteristics. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice. Publication No. 21 USC 1360c(i)(1)(D) (2006 ed.).
58. (2006) Least burdensome approach for evaluating effectiveness of PMA devices. Federal food, drug, and cosmetic act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 1360c(a)(3)(D)(ii) (2006 ed.).
59. Dichiara J, (2007) Letter to Mark N. Melkerson responding to request for additional information for ReGen's Collagen Scaffold. Hackensack, NJ: ReGen Biologics. Available: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/ac/08/briefing/2008-4400b1-28-%20C.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2010.
60. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Agenda for Quarterly Meeting on MDUFMA/MDUFA Performance. Washington, DC: Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration. Available: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/MedicalDeviceUserFeeandModernizationActMDUFMA/ucm148074.htm. Accessed January 17, 2010.
61. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF (2009) Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA 302: 2679-2685.
62. Kramer DB, Mallis E, Zuckerman BD, Zimmerman BA, Maisel WH (2010) Premarket clinical evaluation of novel cardiovascular devices: quality analysis of premarket clinical studies submitted to the food and drug administration 2000-2007. Am J Ther 17: 2-7.