Tags
Birmingham, FDA, Food & Drug Administration, hip resurfacing, Medical device, NephewSmith, Premarket Approval, Smith & Nephew, UNited States
FDA Defense of its Decision to Grant PMA to Smith & Nephew’s BHR…
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/05p0440/05p-0440-pdn0001-vol2.pdf.
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Food and Drug Administration
Rockvilie MD 20857
This letter responds to your citizen petition (Petition) dated October 29, 2005, submitted on behalf of Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (Wright).’ You ask {Petition at l} that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pursuant to 21 U.S .C. 360e(d), deny approval of Smith & Nephew‘s (SN) premarket approval application (PMA) for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system (P040033). Specifically, you ask that FDA determine that SN has not met its statutory burden of providing a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness: Id.
DECISION SUMMARY
Your request that we deny approval of SN’s PMA is denied . Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) and FDA regulations, the agency may approve PMAs where the data and information in support of the approval, when taken as a whole, provides reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its conditions of use. We find your argument that the use of a “retrospective, uncontrolled case series at a single center by a single physician without any protocol and with incomplete follow-up” as not scientifically valid (March 10, 2006, letter at 16) to represent a mischaracterization of the sufficiency of the scientific evidence, unpersuasive, and contrary to the law.
For the Full Response click hereFDA Defense of its Decision to Grant PMA to Smith & Nephew’s BHR 05p-0440-pdn0001-vol2
Related articles
- Smith & Nephew – BHR PMA – FIRST OF A KIND PMA – WHO PULLED WHAT STRINGS???? (earlsview.com)
- Despite the Reasons AGAINST – FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Conditional Approval of Smith & Nephew’s BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Technology (earlsview.com)
- FDA Pre Market Approval (PMA) of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System – P040033 (earlsview.com)
- P040033: BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) SYSTEM by SMITH&NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS – FDAzilla Devices (earlsview.com)
- Post-Approval Studies for Smith & Nephew BHR – NOT USEFUL (earlsview.com)
- FDA PMA – how this hides the guilty and stops The Damaged and Suffering from getting Justice – Smith & Nephew (earlsview.com)
- Howard’s Lament – Lawyers dodge the tough jobs! (earlsview.com)
- New FDA guidance on considerations used in device approval (earlsview.com)
- Comment Example: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (earlsview.com)
- Another S&N Victim spat out by the lawyers… Lives ruined and S&N gets off free…. (earlsview.com)
Pingback: FDA, Summary Minutes, Meeting of the Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel, Open Session, Hilton Washington D.C. North, Gaithersburg, MD, at 12 (Sept. 8, 2005) « Earl's View
Pingback: SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS DATA PREMARKET APPROVAL APPLICATION P040033 SMITH & NEPHEW BHR BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING SYSTEMf « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew BHR – Food and Drug Administration, HHS « Earl's View
Pingback: SMITH & NEPHEW BHR – FDA Papers – Appendix G: Summary of MoM Hip Resurfacing Post-Approval Studies « Earl's View
Pingback: Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: A Systematic Review « Earl's View
Pingback: Early Clinical Experience With the Use of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System | Orthopedics « Earl's View
Pingback: Metal on metal hip resurfacing using the BHR, Cormet 2000, or Conserve Plus devices does not meet CTAF criteria 3-5 for safety, efficacy and improvement in health outcomes for patients as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew – Class 2 Recall R3 Constrained Acetabular Liner « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew’s BHR PMA approval by the FDA despite lack of scientifically valid trials and BHR Conflict of Interest « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew BHR FDA-required Post-Approval Studies « Earl's View
Pingback: Wright Medical Filed Petition to Block Smith & Nephews Metal Implant « Earl's View
Pingback: Pre Market Approval – Why does the Law shelter Smith & Nephew & others like them? « Earl's View
Pingback: Cry from the Heart – Where is Mr Smith & his Nephew? « Earl's View
Pingback: FDA Aims To Smooth Premarket Review process | Bloomberg BNA « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew: my top Woodford stock after dividend hike – Citywire Money « Earl's View
Pingback: 26% Failure in Female Smith & Nephew BHR’s – The ten-year survival of the Birmingham… [J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI « Earl's View