Improving medical device regulation: The United States and Europe in perspective

Milbank Quarterly

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 114-150

  Sorenson, Corinna ^a   Drummond, Michael ^a,b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

comparative studies; health care reform; medical devices; regulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DEVICE SAFETY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EUROPE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; MARKETING; MEDICAL DEVICE; MEDICAL DEVICE REGULATION; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; UNITED STATES;

COMPARATIVE STUDIES; HEALTH CARE REFORM; MEDICAL DEVICES; REGULATION;

DEVICE APPROVAL; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; EUROPE; HUMANS; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84895793436     PISSN: 0887378X     EISSN: 14680009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12043     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Kruger K, Kruger M,. The medical device sector. In: Burns LR, ed. The Business of Healthcare Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012: 376-445.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. A delicate balance: FDA and the reform of the medical device approval process. Testimony before Special Committee on Agency, US Senate, 112th Cong., 1st sess., April 13, 2011. www.fda.gov/ NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm250709.htm. Accessed December 5, 2011.
3. Institute of Medicine. Medical Devices and the Public's Health. The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Medical-Devices-and-the-Publics-Health- The-FDA-510k-Clearance-Process-at-35-Years.aspx. Accessed November 20, 2011.
4. Miller R,. Debate on 510(k)s and recalls reaches Capitol Hill. Medscape. February 18, 2011. www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737721. Accessed October 15, 2011.
5. Gottlieb S,. How the FDA could cost you your life. Wall Street Journal. October 3, 2011: A17. online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB10001424052970204831304576597200095602270. Accessed January 9, 2012.
6. Pollack A,. Medical treatment, out of reach. New York Times. February 9, 2011. www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/business/10device.html?pagewanted=all&-r=0. Accessed October 28, 2013.
7. Freemantle N,. Evaluating and regulating the device industry. BMJ. 2011; 342: d2839.
8. European Commission. Roadmap 2012: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning Medical Devices and Repealing Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. Brussels: European Commission; 2011. ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned-ia/docs/2008-sanco-081-proposal-medical- devices-en.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2011.
9. Heneghan C,. The saga of Poly Implant Prothèse breast implants. BMJ. 2011; 344: e306.
10. Meier B,. FDA to tighten regulation of all-metal hip implants. New York Times. January 16, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/business/fda-to- tighten-regulation-of-all-metal-hip-implants.html. Accessed August 5, 2013.
11. US Food and Drug Administration. Unsafe and ineffective devices approved in the EU that were not approved in the US. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2012. http://www.elsevierbi.com/~/media/Supporting%20Documents/ The%20Gray%20Sheet/38/20/FDA-EU-Devices-Report.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013.
12. Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS,. Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union. N Engl J M. 2012; 366 (9): 848-855.
13. Basu S, Hassenplug JC,. Patient access to medical devices-a comparison of U.S. and European review processes. N Engl J M. 2012; 367: 485-488.
14. US Government Accountability Office. Classes of Devices. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Publication No. 21 USC 360c(a); 2006 ed.
15. US Food and Drug Administration. Device advice: premarket notification. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2000. http://www.fda.gov/ medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/howtomarketyourdevice/ premarketsubmissions/premarketnotification510k/default.htm. Accessed October 31, 2013.
16. US Food and Drug Administration. Modifications to devices subject to Premarket Approval (PMA)-the PMA supplement decision-making process. Accessed December 11, 2008. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulation andGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm089360. Accessed April 3, 2013.
17. Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR814.82, April 1, 2012.
18. Fraser AG, Krucoff MW, Brindis R, Komajda M, Smith SC Jr,. International collaboration needed on device clinical standards. BMJ. 2011; 342: d2952.
19. Cohen D, Billingsley M,. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ. 2011; 342: d2748.
20. Thompson M, Heneghan C, Billingsley M, Cohen D,. Medical device recalls and transparency in the UK. BMJ. 2011; 342: d2973.
21. Sweet BV, Schwemm AK, Parsons DM,. Review of the processes for FDA oversight of drugs, medical devices, and combination products. J Manage Care Pharm. 2011; 17: 40-50.
22. US Government Accountability Office. Medical devices: FDA should take steps to ensure that high-risk device types are approved through the most stringent premarket review process. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2009. Publication No. GAO-09-190. www.gao.gov/new.items/d09190.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.
23. US Government Accountability Office. Medicare durable medical equipment: Class III devices do not warrant a distinct annual payment update. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2006. Publication No. GAO-06-02. www.gao.gov/new.items/d0662.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013.
24. Ardaugh BM, Graves SE, Redberg RF,. The 510(k) ancestry of a metal-on-metal hip implant. N Engl J M. 2013; 368: 97-100.
25. Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE,. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171 (11): 1006-1011.
26. US Food and Drug Administration. Understanding Barriers to Medical Device Quality. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2011.
27. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff-factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations in medical device premarket approvals and de novo classifications. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2012. www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/ deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm267829.htm. Accessed November 1, 2013.
28. Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redbury RF,. Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009; 302: 2679-2685.
29. Chen CE, Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF,. Inclusion of training patients in US Food and Drug Administration premarket approval cardiovascular device studies. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 534-539.
30. Chen CE, Dhruva SS, Redberg RF,. Inclusion of comparative effectiveness data in high-risk cardiovascular device studies at the time of premarket approval. JAMA. 2012; 308 (17): 1740-1742.
31. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry-providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products. Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 1998. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceCompliance RegulatoryInformation/Guidance/ucm078749.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013.
32. Miller R,. Studies show cardiovascular devices often earn FDA approval without high-quality clinical data. Medscape. December 30, 2009. www.medscape.com/viewarticle/790524?t=1. Accessed October 30, 2013.
33. Di Mario C, James S, Dudek D, Sabate M, Degertekin M,. Commentary: The risk of over-regulation. BMJ. 2011; 342: d3021.
34. Lenzer J, Brownlee S,. Why the FDA can't protect the public. BMJ. 2010; 341: c4753.
35. Office of the Inspector General. Adverse event reporting for medical devices. Boston, Mass: Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services; 2009. doi: OEI-01-08-00110. oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00110. pdf. oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00110.pdf Accessed November 11, 2011.
36. Malenka DJ, Kaplan AV, Sharp SM, Wennberg JE,. Post-marketing surveillance of medical devices using Medicare claims. Health Aff. 2005; 24 (4): 928-937.
37. Cheng M., Medical Device Regulations: Global Overview and Guiding Principles. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
38. Lagerqvist B, James SK, Stenestrand U, et al. Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N Engl J M. 2009; 356: 1009-1019.
39. Sarno G, Lagerqvist B, Frober O, et al. Lower risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis with unrestricted use of "new-generation" drug-eluting stents: a report from the nationwide Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCARR). Eur Heart J. 2012. doi: 10.1093/eurheart/ehr479.
40. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for clinical investigators, industry, and FDA staff-financial disclosure by clinical investigators. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2013. www.fda.gov/downloads/ RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM341008.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013.
41. Federal Register. Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (S.3187). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2012. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ144/pdf/PLAW-112publ144.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2013.
42. European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Medical Devices, and amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Brussels: European Commission; 2012. ec.europa.eu/health/medical-devices/files/revision-docs/ proposal-2012-542-en.pdf. Accessed on March 10, 2013.
43. European Parliament. Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Medical Devices, and amending directive 2001/83/EC, regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Brussels: European Commission, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety; 2013. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do? pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-507. 972%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN. Accessed November 1, 2013.
44. Cohen D,. Devices and desires: industry fights toughening of medical device regulation in Europe. BMJ. 2013; 347: f6204. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6204.
45. Ladin Z, Imhoff M,. FDA review patterns of de novo submissions. Boston: Boston MedTech Advisors; 2010. bmtadvisors.com/docs/2010-06-10- FDA%20Review%20Patterns%20of %20De%20Novo%20Submissions-Final.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2013.
46. US Food and Drug Administration. Analysis of premarket review times under the 510(k) program. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2011. www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofmedicalproductsandtobacco/cdrh/ cdrhreports/ucm263385.htm. Accessed October 25, 2013.
47. US Food and Drug Administration. Improvements in device review-results of CDRH's plan of action for premarket review of devices. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2012. www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM329702.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2013.
48. Hines JZ, Lurie P, Yu E, Wolfe S,. Left to their own devices: breakdowns in United States medical device premarket review. PLoS Med. 2010; 7 (7): e1000280.
49. James S, Daubert JC, Van de Werf F,. Use of registries to investigate the past and develop the future. BMJ. 2011; 342: d2826.
50. Van Brabandt H, Neyt M, Hulstaert F,. Transcatheter aortic value implantation (TAVI): risky and costly. BMJ. 2012; 345: e4710.