Assessment of the incorporation of patient-centric outcomes in studies of minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices

JAMA Ophthalmology

Volumn 134, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 1054-1056

  Le, Jimmy T ^a   Viswanathan, Shilpa ^b   Tarver, Michelle E ^c   Eydelman, Malvina ^c   Li, Tianjing ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b IQVIA   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; CONFERENCE PAPER; GLAUCOMA SURGERY; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE GLAUCOMA SURGERY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISUAL ACUITY; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GLAUCOMA; OCULOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PROCEDURES; TRABECULECTOMY;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PATIENT-CENTERED CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; TONOMETRY, OCULAR; TRABECULECTOMY; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 84998892624     PISSN: 21686165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.2101     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. National Eye Institute. Glaucoma, open-angle. https://nei.nih.gov/eyedata/glaucoma. Accessed October 27, 2015.
2. Brandão LM, Grieshaber MC. Update on minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) and new implants [published online November 27, 2013]. J Ophthalmol. doi:10.1155/2013/705915.
3. Caprioli J, Kim JH, Friedman DS, et al. Special commentary: Supporting innovation for safe and effective minimally invasive glaucoma surgery: Summary of a joint meeting of the American Glaucoma Society and the Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, February 26, 2014. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(9):1795-1801.
4. US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Glaukos iStent Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent (models: GTS-100R, GTS-100L) and inserter (GTS-100i). http://www .accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh-docs/pdf8/P080030a.pdf. Published June 25, 2012. Accessed January 26, 2015.
5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA/AGS workshop on supporting innovation for safe and effective minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, February 26, 2014. http://www.fda.gov /MedicalDevices/NewsEvents /WorkshopsConferences/ucm382508.htm. Accessed October 25, 2015.
6. Eydelman MB. The US Food and Drug Administration's efforts to support ophthalmology clinical trials. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(12): 1391-1392.
7. Food and Drug Administration. Patient preference information: Submission, review in PMAs, HDE applications, and de novo requests and inclusion in device labeling: Draft guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and other stakeholders. http://www.fda.gov/downloads /MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance /GuidanceDocuments/UCM446680.pdf. Published May 18, 2015. Accessed May 11, 2016.
8. Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: The PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012;307 (15):1636-1640.
9. Varma R, Richman EA, Ferris FL III, Bressler NM. Use of patient-reported outcomes in medical product development: A report from the 2009 NEI/FDA Clinical Trial Endpoints Symposium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(12):6095-6103.
10. Medeiros FA. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in glaucoma clinical trials. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(5):599-603.
11. Saheb H, Ahmed II. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery: Current perspectives and future directions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012;23(2):96-104.
12. Saldanha IJ, Dickersin K, Wang X, Li T. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews addressing four common eye conditions: An evaluation of completeness and comparability. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e109400.
13. 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 approval and de novo classifications. http://www .fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices /deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments /ucm296379.pdf. Published March 28, 2012. Accessed April 24, 2015.
14. Woodcock J. 21st-Century Cures: Modernizing Clinical Trials and Incorporating the Patient Perspective. Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration; 2014.
15. Medical Device Innovation Consortium. Patient centered benefit-risk assessment (PCBR). http: //mdic.org/pcbr/. Accessed September 25, 2015.