Tags
BHR, FDA, Food & Drug Administration, Food and Drug Administration, hip resurfacing, Nephew, NephewSmith, Petition, PMA, pre-market approval, Smith, Smith & Nephew
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/05p0440/05p-0440-c000001-01-vol2.pdf.
Smith & Nephew‘s :Response to Wright Medical Technology‘s Citizen’s Petition to Deny PPrIA P040033
Smith & Nephew, Inc. is responding to Wright Medical Technology’s (WMT) citizen’s petition requesting that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deny approval of PMA P040033 for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System, despite years of data collection and agency review. The WMT petition is procedurally flawed because FDA’s well-defined premarket application (PMA) review process does not permit third parties to interject themselves by filing a citizen’s petition. Although interested third parties may request review of an approval order, such requests are permitted only after an approval order has issued, and must be filed as a petition for reconsideration . Flouting this procedure, WMT has jumped in with a citizen’s petition while the administrative record is incomplete and before FDA has even made a final decision .
WMT citizen’s petition also lacks merit. It simply rehashes issues concerning the BHR system PMA application that were fully vetted before the expert independent advisory panel. WMT asserts that an FDA approval would contravene the governing statutes and regulations, but as will be discussed below, this claim is without merit. As to the scientific issues that WMT raises, the advisory panel was fully justified in finding that the BHR System data provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, and FDA would likewise be justified in doing so. As discussed below, WMT does not present any basis for concluding that an FDA approval should be withheld or that it would be outside the bounds of expert scientific. judgment . WMT’s petition should be summarily denied.
Full response - click here Smith & Nephew’s Response to Wright Medical Technology’s Citizen’s 05p-0440-c000001-01-vol2
Related articles
- Post-Approval Studies for Smith & Nephew BHR – NOT USEFUL (earlsview.com)
- Smith & Nephew – BHR PMA – FIRST OF A KIND PMA – WHO PULLED WHAT STRINGS???? (earlsview.com)
- FDA Pre Market Approval (PMA) of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System – P040033 (earlsview.com)
- Despite the Reasons AGAINST – FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Conditional Approval of Smith & Nephew’s BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Technology (earlsview.com)
- FDA Considers Metal Hip Injuries – A Bit Too Late for Some Victims – Florida Mass Tort Attorneys, Lawyers | Searcy Mass Torts (earlsview.com)
- FDA panel sees little use for metal-on-metal hips | CTVNews (earlsview.com)
- P040033: BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) SYSTEM by SMITH&NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS – FDAzilla Devices (earlsview.com)
- Comment Example: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (earlsview.com)
- New FDA guidance on considerations used in device approval (earlsview.com)
- Howard’s Lament – Lawyers dodge the tough jobs! (earlsview.com)
Pingback: My Blog spiritandanimal.wordpress.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: FDA Faces Daunting Task as Health Apps Multiply | Sci-Tech Today « 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: Cry from the Heart – Where is Mr Smith & his Nephew? « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew: my top Woodford stock after dividend hike – Citywire Money « Earl's View