Drugs and Devices: Comparison of European and U.S. Approval Processes

JACC: Basic to Translational Science

Volumn 1, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 399-412

  Van Norman, Gail A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

device approval; drug approval; EMA; European Commission; FDA

Indexed keywords

EID: 85002715026     PISSN: 2452302X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. 1 Kashyap, U.N., Gupta, V., Raghunandan, H.V., Comparison of drug approval process in United States and Europe. J Pharm Sci Res 5 (2013), 131–136.
2. 2 Wild, C., Erdos, J., Zechmeister, I., Contrasting clinical evidence for market authorisation of cardio-vascular devices in Europe and the USA: a systematic analysis of 10 devices based on Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 14, 2014, 154.
3. 3 Kramer, D.B., Xu, S., Kesselheim, A.S., Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union. N Engl J Med 366 (2012), 848–855.
4. 4 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. Available at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/∼/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Medical-Devices-and-the-Publics-Health-The-FDA-510k-Clearance-Process-at-35-Years/510k%20Clearance%20Process%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2016.
5. 5 Gaffney A. Bill Wants Drugs Approved in Europe to Be Available More Quickly to US Patients. Regulatory Focus March 15, 2015. Regulatory Professional Affairs Society. Available at: http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2015/03/20/21778/Bill-Wants-Drugs-Approved-in-Europe-to-be-Available-More-Quickly-to-US-Patients/. Accessed May 28, 2016.
6. 6 Parvisi, N., Woods, K., Regulation of medicines and medical devices: contrasts and similarities. Clin Med 14 (2014), 6–12.
7. 7 Van Norman, G.A., Drugs, devices and the FDA: an overview of approval processes. Part 1 FDA approval processes for drugs. J Am Coll Cardiol Basic Trans Science 1 (2016), 170–179.
8. 8 Van Norman, G.A., Drugs, devices and the FDA: an overview of approval processes. Part 2 FDA approval of medical devices. J Am Coll Cardiol Basic Trans Science 1 (2016), 277–287.
9. 9 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. History. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/default.htm. Accessed March 4, 2016.
10. 10 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Classes of Devices. Publication No. 21 USC 360c(a);2006 ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
11. 11 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFA). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/MedicalDeviceUserFeeandModernizationActMDUFMA/default.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
12. 12 Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the Approximation of Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action Relating to Proprietary Medicinal Products. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31965L0065 Accessed May 27, 2016.
13. 13 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A Look at the European Medicines Agency. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/AnimalHealthLiteracy/ucm246776.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
14. 14 European Commission. Clinical Trials – Directive 2001/20/EC. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/clinical-trials/directive/index_en.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
15. 15 European Commission. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and Repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2014_536/reg_2014_536_en.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2016.
16. 16 European Medicine's Agency. Orphan Designation. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000029.jsp. Accessed June 3, 2016.
17. 17 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Developing Products for Rare Diseases & Conditions. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/default.htm. Accessed June 17, 2016.
18. 18 European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the Scientific Application and the Practical Arrangements Necessary to Implement Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on the Conditional Marketing Authorisation for Medicinal Products for Human Use Falling Within the Scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2016/03/WC500202774.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2016.
19. 19 European Medicines Agency. About Us. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000235.jsp&mid. Accessed June 3, 2016.
20. 20 Cooksey, D.A., Review of UK Health Research Funding. 2006, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, UK https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228984/0118404881.pdf Accessed June 3, 2016.
21. 21 Downing, N.S., Aminawung, J.A., Shah, N., et al. Regulatory review of novel therapeutics—comparison of three regulatory agencies. N Engl J Med 366 (2012), 2284–2293.
22. 22 Roberts, S.A., Allen, J.D., Sigal, E.V., Despite criticism of the FDA review process, new cancer drugs reach patients sooner in the United States than in Europe. Health Aff (Millwood) 30 (2011), 1375–1381.
23. 23 Begg, C.B., Berlin, J.A., Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc 151 (1988), 419–463.
24. 24 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Drugs @ FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/. Accessed June 3, 2016.
25. 25 MacLean, C.H., Morton, S.C., Ofman, J.J., Roth, E.A., Shekelle, P.G., How useful are unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration in meta-analysis?. J Clin Epidem 56 (2003), 44–51.
26. 26 Gøtzsche, P.C., Jørgensen, A.W., Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ, 342, 2011, d2686.
27. 27 Campbell, B., Regulation and safe adoption of new medical devices and procedures. Brit Med Bull 107 (2013), 5–18.
28. 28 Bright, J., European medical device regulatory law and product liability. J Hosp Infect 43 (1999), 169–173.
29. 29 EUR-Lex. Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 Concerning Medical Devices. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31993L0042. Accessed May 27, 2016.
30. 30 Sorenson, C., Drummond, M., Improving medical device regulation: the United States and Europe in perspective. Milbank Qrtly 92 (2014), 114–130.
31. 31 Boulton, A.J.M., Registration and regulation of medical devices used in diabetes in Europe: need for radical reform. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 1 (2013), 270–272.
32. 32 Jefferys, D.B., The regulation of medical devices and the role of the Medical Devices Agency. Br J Clin Pharmacol 52 (2001), 229–235.
33. 33 McKenna, C., Understanding the medical device directive changes. Biomed Instrum Technol 43 (2009), 319–320.
34. 34 European Commission. Market Surveillance and Vigilance. Eudamed—European Databank on Medical Devices. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/medical-devices/market-surveillance/index_en.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
35. 35 Boumans R. The Future of Eudamed—Better, Bigger, Riskier. EmergoGroup blog, February 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.emergogroup.com/blog/2016/02/future-eudamed-better-bigger-riskier. Accessed June 3, 2016.
36. 36 Altenstetter, C., EU and member state medical device regulation. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 19 (2003), 228–248.
37. 37 Global Legal Research Center. Approval of Medical Devices. The Law Library of Congress. September 2014. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/medical-devices/approval-of-medical-devices.pdf. Accessed on June 3, 2016.
38. 38 European Commission. Guidelines on Medical Devices: Guidelines on Clinical Investigations; Guide for Manufacturers and Notified Bodies. MEDDEV 2.7/4. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/10336/attachments/1/translations. Accessed June 3, 2016.
39. 39 Cohen, D., How a fake hip showed up failings in the European device regulation. BMJ, 345, 2012, e7090.
40. 40 Kaplan, A.V., Baim, D.S., Smith, J.J., et al. Medical device development: from prototype to regulatory approval. Circulation 109 (2004), 3068–3072.
41. 41 Cohen, D., Billingsley, M., Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ, 342, 2011, d2952.
42. 42 McCulloch, P., The EU's system for regulating medical devices: now is the time for radical change. BMJ, 345, 2012, e7126.
43. 43 Cohen, D., The truth behind “made in Europe” labels on medical devices. BMJ, 345, 2012, e7193.
44. 44 Cohen, D., Devices and desires: industry fights toughening of medical device regulation in Europe. BMJ, 347, 2013, f6204.
45. 45 Kramer, D.B., Xu, S., Kesselheim, A.S., How does medical device approval regulation perform in the United States and the European Union? A systematic review. PLos Med, 9, 2012, e1001276.
46. 46 Resnic, F.S., Normand, S.L.T., Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices—filling in the gaps. N Engl J Med 366 (2012), 875–877.
47. 47 Basu, S., Hassenplug, J.C., Patient access to medical devices—a comparison of U.S. and European review processes. N Engl J Med 367 (2012), 485–488.
48. 48 Stafford, N., Only 3 in 20 new drugs approved in Germany in 2011 were an improvement, report says. BMJ, 348, 2014, g2657.
49. 49 Di Mario, C., James, S., Dudek, D., Sabagte, M., Degertekin, M., Commentary: the risk of over-regulation. BMJ, 342, 2011, d3021.
50. 50 Braillon, A., Medical devices and the approval processes: United States vs. France. Arch Intern Med 170 (2010), 2040–2041.
51. 51 Fargen, K.M., Frei, D., Fiorella, D., et al. The FDA approval process for medical devices: an inherently flawed system or a valuable pathway for innovation?. J Neurointerv Surg 5 (2013), 269–275.
52. 52 Sweet, B.V., Schwemm, A.K., Parsons, D.M., Review of the processes for FDA oversight of drugs, medical devices and combination products. J Manage Care Pharm 17 (2011), 40–50.
53. 53 Zuckerman, D.M., Brown, P., Nissen, S.E., Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med 171 (2011), 1006–1011.
54. 54 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Understanding Barriers to Medical Device Quality. Available at: http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=understanding+barriers+to+medical+device+quality&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&requiredfields=-archive%3AYes&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*. Accessed June 3, 2016.
55. 55 H.R. 3095 Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990. Congress.gov Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/3095. Accessed June 3, 2016.
56. 56 Ardaugh, B.M., Graves, S.E., Redberg, R.F., The 501(k) ancestry of a metal-on-metal hip implant. N Engl J Med 368 (2013), 97–100.
57. 57 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. How to Find and Effectively Use Predicate Devices. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/howtomarketyourdevice/premarketsubmissions/ucm134571.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
58. 58 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Unsafe and Ineffective Devices Approved in the EU That Were Not Approved in the US. 2012, U.S. FDA, Silver Spring, MD Available at: http://www.elsevierbi.com/∼/media/Supporting%20Documents/The%20Gray%20Sheet/38/20/FDA_EU_Devices_Report.pdf Accessed June 3, 2016.
59. 59 Audry, A., Ghislain, J.C., Le Dispositif Médical. 2009, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, France, 55–57.
60. 60 Curfman, G.D., Redberg, R.F., Medical devices–balancing regulation and innovation. N Engl J Med 365 (2011), 975–977.
61. 61 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Recall, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
62. 62 Wang, B., Gagne, J.J., Choudry, N.K., The epidemiology of drug recalls in the United States. Arch Intern Med 172 (2012), 1109–1110.
63. 63 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. February 25, 2010: Medical Device Manufacturer Guidant Charged in Failure to Report Defibrillator Safety Problems to FDA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm272226.htm. Accessed June 19, 2016.
64. 64 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 520/2012 of 19 June 2012. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:159:0005:0025:EN:PDF. Accessed June 3, 2016.
65. 65 European Commission. Medicinal Products for Human Use: The EU Pharmacovigilance System. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/pharmacovigilance/index_en.htm. Accessed June 3, 2016.
66. 66 Arrowsmith, J., Trial watch: phase II and submission failures 2007-2010. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 10, 2011, 87.
67. 67 Kola, I., Landis, J., Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3 (2004), 711–715.
68. 68 Eichler, H.G., Pgnatti, F., Flamion, B., Leufkens, H., Breckenridge, A., Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7 (2008), 818–826.
69. 69 Ajorn, J., Paying for drug approval—who's using whom?. N Engl J Med 356 (2007), 1697–1700.
70. 70 Banzi, R., Gerardi, C., Bertele, V., Garattini, S., Approvals of drugs with uncertain benefit-risk profiles in Europe. Eur J Int Med 26 (2015), 572–584.
71. 71 Randall, H., Post marketing surveillance and vigilance for medical devices: the European approach. Drug Safety 24 (2001), 869–872.
72. 72 Greco, C., The Poly Implant Prosthèse breast prosthesis scandal: embodied risk and social suffering. Soc Sci Med 147 (2014), 150–157.
73. 73 Heneghan, C., The saga of Poly Implant Prosthèse breast implants. BMJ, 344, 2012, e306.
74. 74 Dhruva, S.S., Redberg, R.F., Medical device regulation: time to improve performance. PLoS Med, 9, 2012, e1001277.
75. 75 Kaszala, K., Ellenbogen, K.A., In search of the shocking truth. Heart Rhythm 9 (2012), 1236–1238.
76. 76 Liu, J., Brumber, G., Rattan, R., Jain, S., Saba, S., Class I recall of defibrillator leads: a comparison of the Sprint Fidelis and Riata families. Heart Rhythm 9 (2012), 1251–1255.
77. 77 Hauser, R.G., Abdelhadi, R., McGriff, D., Retel, L.K., Deaths caused by failure of Riata and Riata ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Heart Rhythm 9 (2012), 1227–1235.
78. 78 Hause, R.G., Here we go again—another failure of postmarketing device surveillance. N Engl J Med 366 (2012), 873–875.
79. 79 European Commission. Directive 85/374/EC: Liability for Defective Products. Available at: http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/skrining/eksplanatorni/prezentacije/pg28/28_3.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2016.
80. 80 Heneghan, C., Thompson, M., Billingsley, M., Cohen, D., Medical-device recalls in the UK and the device regulation process: retrospective review of safety notices and recalls. BMJ Open, 1, 2011, e000155.
81. 81 Schoonmaker M. The U.S. Approval Process for Medical Devices: Legislative Issues and Comparison With the Drug Model. Order Code RL 32826. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. March 23, 2005. University of Maryland School of Law. Available at: http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL3282603232005.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2010.
82. 82 Somberg, J.C., McEwen, P., Molnar, J., Assessment of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medical device recalls. Am J Cardiol 113 (2014), 1899–1903.
83. 83 Dal Pan, G.J., Arlett, P.R., The US Food and Drug Administration-European Medicines Agency collaboration in pharmacovigilance: common objectives and common challenges. Drug Saf 38 (2015), 13–15.
84. 84 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. Available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9769-2015-INIT/en/pdf. Accessed June 3, 2016.