Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Congress, FDA, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Food & Drug Administration, Institute of Medicine, Medical device, Medicine, UNited States, United States Congress, United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce
WASHINGTON — Katherine Ayers was 36 when she decided the pain in her hip had become too much to bear. A surgically implanted metal-on-metal hip joint soon made her pain-free.
But a few years later, she was startled to receive a letter saying the artificial joint was being recalled. “In my mind, recalls were for dishwasher and cars, not body parts,” she told a congressional hearing.
It was experiences such as Ayers’ — and scores of others with even more serious consequences — that led the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to call on the government to design a whole new system for evaluating and approving medical devices such as her hip joint before they reach the market.
“It’s not clear that the … process is serving the needs of either industry or patients, and simply modifying it again will not help,” David Challoner, chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
Medical devices range from simple adhesive strip bandages used for minor cuts to contact lenses and pacemakers. When complex devices fail, they can generate health problems and health-care costs, even imperil lives.
Surprising as it may seem, the way the present system works is that thousands of devices are routinely cleared for market without any of the clinical testing for safety or effectiveness that is required for prescription drugs.
“I thought that any medical device that was actually being put into people’s bodies had been extensively tested before it was released to the public,” said Ayers, who was one of 96,000 patients who received the implant before it was recalled.
No tests mandated
At the same time, Congress created the so-called 510(k) process under which new devices could be cleared for market if they were “substantially equivalent” to existing products.
As a result, thousands of medical devices have received FDA clearance based on older devices that were never subjected to the kinds of rigorous pre-market testing required for pharmaceuticals.
And studies have shown that devices approved in the expedited process are more likely to be recalled.
More than 90,000 artificial hips were recalled last summer after studies showed that about 1 in 8 recipients needed to have them replaced. The hips, manufactured by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, were found to release small metallic particles into patients’ bloodstreams over time.
In 2009, the Institute of Medicine noted, about 4,000 medical devices were cleared under the expedited 510(k) process — more than 90 percent of all devices subject to FDA clearance. Simple “devices” such as tongue depressors and adhesive strips can be sold without FDA clearance, although companies must notify the agency.
Critics contend that the 510(k) process amounts to a loophole for marketing products without adequate attention to safety or effectiveness.
But the new recommendation, released Friday in a report requested by the FDA, was met with resistance from an agency official.
“FDA believes that the 510(k) process should not be eliminated,” Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the agency’s medical devices arm, said in a statement about the new report. “But we are open to additional proposals and approaches for continued improvement of our device-review programs.”
Device manufacturers contend that the 510(k) process slows the flow of products to market.
“It is not technology, science, ingenuity or the economy that is standing in the way of success in developing new medical technologies. In my opinion, it is today the FDA,” engineer Robert Fischell told a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.
Fischell, inventor of an implantable insulin pump and a series of coronary stents, said that the medical device approval process is inconsistent and that the FDA staff is not sufficiently trained.
AdvaMed, a lobbying group that represents major manufacturers, rejected the findings of the new report, saying the committee “recommends entirely scrapping this proven process with a vague new plan that contains no useful guidance.”
- Report could sway FDA device review process (earlsview.com)
- FDA 510K Process – Another Issue – Risky pelvic mesh highlights worries about FDA process (earlsview.com)
- Barry Meier – Study Faults Approval Process for Medical Devices (earlsview.com)
- Institute of Medicine – Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process (earlsview.com)
- Report: IOM review of the FDA 510(k) process due Friday (earlsview.com)
- 510(k) reforms: FDA downplays the impact of the IOM study on the eve of its release (earlsview.com)
- Regulatory Reform Series #5 – FDA Medical Device Regulation: Impact on American Patients, Innovation and Jobs (earlsview.com)
- FDA clarifies when medical device changes call for new 510(k) submission (medcitynews.com)
- Reader Consult: What Could Take the Place of the 510(k) Process? (blogs.wsj.com)
- 510(k) approval process is ‘too big to fail – no matter how flawed it may be (medcitynews.com)