DePuy, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Food & Drug Administration, Hip Replacement, Institute of Medicine, Medical device, New England Journal of Medicine, substantial equivalence
How Safe Are Medical Devices?
Published: August 4, 2011 New York Times
A prestigious medical group is concerned that most medical devices are cleared for sale without evidence that they are safe and effective. That should give everyone pause. A panel of experts assembled by the Institute of Medicine found the current regulatory approach so flawed that it called for it to be scrapped and replaced with a system better designed to protect the public’s health.
The committee found no reason to believe that any devices on the market are unsafe or ineffective; it said their use in clinical practice provides at least some level of confidence. But it threw up its hands and said it had no way to determine which, if any, devices might be risky because there is virtually no data to rely on.
That’s because only the highest-risk devices, such as implantable defibrillators and replacement heart valves, undergo clinical trials in patients to show that they are safe and effective. Devices deemed only a “moderate risk” are cleared if the manufacturer can show that they are “substantially equivalent” to devices previously cleared. Those devices in turn may have been cleared because they were “substantially equivalent” to earlier devices that may no longer be in use.
Problems can arise when the devices are not all that similar or when none of the devices in a chain of supposed equivalents have ever been shown safe and effective. In recent years there have been reports of device failures and injuries involving metal-on-metal artificial hips, a synthetic mesh “vaginal sling” to control urinary leaks, and an internal patch for injured knees, among others.
The Food and Drug Administration was taken aback when the institute’s panel concluded, unanimously, that the current system could not be fixed because “substantial equivalence” is based on comparisons reaching back more than 35 years to devices that were never systematically assessed for safety or effectiveness.
The F.D.A. promptly rejected the notion of junking the system but said it would hold hearings on the report. Industry leaders, who had been making scurrilous attacks on the panel’s objectivity even before the report was issued, voiced opposition to such a radical change.
The hearings will provide an opportunity to identify proposals — such as more rigorous surveillance of devices after they are on the market — that can be adopted comparatively quickly. The more radical notion of building a wholly new system needs more thorough airing but may be the way to go.
- Did IOM Put the Final Nail in the Coffin of Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants? (earlsview.com)
- Barry Meier – Study Faults Approval Process for Medical Devices (earlsview.com)
- Advisory panel calls for revamping FDA approval process for medical devices (earlsview.com)
- 510(k) approval process is too big to fail no matter how flawed it may be (earlsview.com)
- Report could sway FDA device review process (earlsview.com)
- U.S. advisers call for new medical device regime (earlsview.com)
- Barry Meier – Study of Medical Device Rules Is Attacked, Unseen (earlsview.com)
- Expert group calls for new way to clear medical devices (earlsview.com)
- Implications of I.O.M. (druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com)
- FDA Medical Device Approval Process Needs Overhaul: Report (pogoblog.typepad.com)
Pingback: IOM Gives FDA The wrong prescription on medical devices & 510(k) « Earl's View
Pingback: Medical Devices — Balancing Regulation and Innovation « Earl's View