Dataset Information

Characteristics and use of patient-reported outcomes of clinical trials for high-risk neurological medical devices that received FDA premarket approval from 2001 to 2022.

ABSTRACT: Neurological medical devices have revolutionized the management of neurological disorders, providing diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring solutions. High-risk neurological devices, such as deep brain stimulation and neurostimulators, offer groundbreaking treatments, emphasizing patient benefits while considering risks. To gain FDA approval, high-risk Class III devices necessitate premarket approval (PMA) applications with pivotal clinical trials, often assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This article analyzes FDA-approved high-risk neurological devices from 2001 to 2022 via the PMA pathway. It explores device characteristics and pivotal clinical trials, and PRO incorporation. Of the 23 identified devices, pain neurology devices (30.4 %) predominated. All devices were therapeutic, with varying study designs. Pain neurology devices notably emphasized PRO endpoints as expected. This study underscores the significance of PROs in assessing device efficacy and safety, offering insights into regulatory processes and patient-centered care in neurological disorder management.

SUBMITTER: Ryan ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10805911 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Characteristics and use of patient-reported outcomes of clinical trials for high-risk neurological medical devices that received FDA premarket approval from 2001 to 2022.

Ryan Morgan E ME Srivastava Siddharth S Wan Lin L Yang Guang G Zhang Bo B

Contemporary clinical trials communications 20240102

Neurological medical devices have revolutionized the management of neurological disorders, providing diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring solutions. High-risk neurological devices, such as deep brain stimulation and neurostimulators, offer groundbreaking treatments, emphasizing patient benefits while considering risks. To gain FDA approval, high-risk Class III devices necessitate premarket approval (PMA) applications with pivotal clinical trials, often assessing patient-reported outcomes (PRO ...[more]

PMID: 38269047

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe FDA approves novel, high-risk medical devices through the premarket approval (PMA) process based on clinical evidence supporting device safety and effectiveness. Devices subsequently may undergo postmarket modifications that are approved via one of several PMA supplement review tracks, usually without additional supporting clinical data. While orthopaedic devices cleared via the less rigorous 510(k) pathway have been studied previously, devices cleared through the PMA pathway and those receiving postmarket PMA supplements warrant further investigation.Questions/purposesWe asked: What are (1) the types of original orthopaedic devices receiving FDA PMA approval, (2) the number and rate of postmarket device changes approved per device, (3) the types of PMA supplement review tracks used, (4) the types of device changes approved via the various review tracks, and (5) the number of device recalls and market withdrawals that have occurred for these devices?MethodsAll original PMA-approved orthopaedic devices between January 1982 and December 2014 were identified in the publically available FDA PMA database. The number of postmarket device changes approved, the PMA supplement review track used, the types of postmarket changes, and any FDA recalls for each device were assessed.ResultsSeventy original orthopaedic devices were approved via the FDA PMA pathway between 1982 and 2014. These devices included 34 peripheral joint implants or prostheses, 18 spinal implants or prostheses, and 18 other devices or materials. These devices underwent a median 6.5 postmarket changes during their lifespan or 1.0 changes per device-year (interquartile range, 0.4-1.9). The rate of new postmarket device changes approved per active device, increased from less than 0.5 device changes per year in 1983 to just fewer than three device changes per year in 2014, or an increase of 0.05 device changes per device per year in linear regression analysis (95% CI, 0.04-0.07). Among the 765 total postmarket changes, 172 (22%) altered device design or components. The majority of the design changes were reviewed via either the real-time review track (n = 98; 57%), intended for minor design changes, or the 180-day review track (n = 71; 41%), intended for major design changes. Finally, a total of 12 devices had FDA recalls at some point during their lifespan, two being for hip prostheses with high revision rates.ConclusionsRelatively few orthopaedic devices undergo the FDA PMA process before reaching the market. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that high-risk medical devices cleared via the FDA's PMA pathway do undergo considerable postmarket device modification after reaching the market, with potential for design "drift," ie, shifting away from the initially tested and approved device designs.Clinical relevanceAs the ultimate end-users of these devices, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware that even among high-risk medical devices approved via the FDA's PMA pathway, considerable postmarket device modification occurs. Continued postmarket device monitoring will be essential to limit patient safety risks.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates high-risk medical devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, via the premarket approval (PMA) process, during which manufacturers submit clinical data demonstrating safety and effectiveness. Subsequent changes to approved high-risk devices are implemented via "supplements," which may not require additional clinical testing.ObjectiveTo characterize the prevalence and characteristics of changes to CIEDs made through the PMA supplement process.DesignUsing the FDA's PMA database, we reviewed all CIEDs approved as original PMAs or supplements from 1979 through 2012. For each supplement, we collected the date approved, type of supplement (panel-track, 180-day, real-time, special, and 30-day notice), and the nature of the changes. We calculated the number of supplements approved per PMA and analyzed trends relating to different supplement regulatory categories over time. For supplements approved via the 180-day regulatory pathway, which often involve significant design changes, from 2010-2012, we identified how often additional clinical data were collected.ResultsFrom 1979-2012, the FDA approved 77 original and 5829 supplement PMA applications for CIEDs, with a median of 50 supplements per original PMA (interquartile range [IQR], 23-87). Excluding manufacturing changes that do not alter device design, the number of supplements approved each year was stable around a mean (SD) of 2.6 (0.9) supplements per PMA per year. Premarket approvals remained active via successive supplements over a median period of 15 years (IQR, 8-20), and 79% of the 77 original PMAs approved during our study period were the subject of at least 1 supplement in 2012. Thirty-seven percent of approved supplements involved a change to the device's design. Among 180-day supplements approved from 2010-2012, 23% (15/64) included new clinical data to support safety and effectiveness.Conclusions and relevanceMany CIED models currently used by clinicians were approved via the PMA supplement process, not as original PMAs. Most new device models are deemed safe and effective without requiring new clinical data, reinforcing the importance of rigorous postapproval surveillance of these devices.

Project description:ImportanceThe manufacturing and marketing of medical devices is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the FDA premarket approval (PMA) process evaluates the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The PMA process includes a detailed scientific, regulatory and quality system review and is critical to ensure that novel devices are safe, effective, and meet the needs of patients.ObjectiveTo survey current voting members serving on panels of the FDA's Medical Devices Advisory Committee to better characterize panel decision-making and identify steps for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative survey study included 36 questions that were mailed to FDA device panelists regarding their opinions on the influence of sources of information, pivotal trial design, quality of evidence, panel composition and internal deliberative process, time allocation, and impartiality of the FDA. The survey was mailed to the members of all 18 FDA device panels in January and February 2017. Data were collected from January to May 2017 and analyzed from 2018 to 2019.ExposuresRespondents read and returned the aforementioned paper survey, while nonrespondents did not.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes included panel members' perceptions, and their implications for process improvement. χ2 or Fisher exact tests were used to test differences between subgroups.ResultsOf 64 of 92 panel members who responded (69.6%), 38 of 64 (59.4%) were male, 3 of 63 (4.8%) were Black respondents, 46 of 63 (73.0%) were White respondents, and 36 of 60 (60.0%) were in academic practice. The mean (range) panel service was 6.8 (1-22) years with 3.9 (1-19) meetings attended. Overall, respondents considered information presented by the FDA unbiased, and 28 of 61 (45.9%) believed that pivotal trials were frequently well-designed, 55 of 62 respondents (88.7%) suggested FDA consult panel members preemptively regarding trial design and 54 of 64 (84.4%) regarding the device label. Most indicated that prior FDA approval of another device serving the same medical purpose (43 of 62 [69.4%]) or approval in other countries with comparable regulatory regimes, such as Canada and Europe (39 of 62 [62.9%]), would make them more likely to recommend approval. Respondents rated written information (50 of 60 [83.3%]), live presentations (43 of 58 [74.1%]), and prior professional knowledge (41 of 60 [68.3%]) as the most important sources of information in deciding whether to recommend approval. Additionally, 52 of 58 respondents (89.7%) recommended that a panel member-only executive session would allow more clarity and honesty in deliberations, and 33 of 59 (55.9%) believed a three-fourths majority appropriate for recommending approval, which would be a deviation from the current system in which an overall vote is reported without designation of a vote threshold.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study of FDA device panel members, respondents wanted improved study designs, more relevant clinical data, including from other countries, involvement of panelists in study design and device label development, and inclusion of an executive session. Demographically, panels could be made more diverse.

Project description:ImportanceMedical device companies submit premarket approval (PMA) statements to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of the highest-risk class of devices. Devices indicated for the pediatric population that use the PMA pathway have not been well characterized or analyzed.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize high-risk devices with pediatric age indications derived from PMA statements.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of PMA statements, those statements containing the words indicated or intended for medical devices listed in the FDA PMA database as of February 2020 were retrieved. Age indications were manually annotated in these approval statements via PubAnnotation. Based on the PMA identification from the PMA statements, device metadata including product codes, regulation numbers, advisory panels, and approval dates were queried.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was discernment of the distribution of devices indicated for the pediatric population (neonate, infant, child, and adolescent). Secondary measures included outlining the clinical specialties, device types, and lag time between the initial approval date and the first date of an approval statement with a pediatric indication for generic device categories.ResultsA total of 297 documents for 149 unique devices were analyzed. Based on the manual age annotations, 102 devices with a pediatric indication, 10 with a neonate age indication, 32 with an infant age indication, 60 with a child age indication, and 94 with an adolescent age indication were identified. For indications for patients from age 17 to 18 years, the number of devices available nearly doubled from 42 devices to 81 devices. Although more than half of the surveyed devices had a pediatric age indication, many were available only for a limited range of the pediatric population (age 18-21 years). For indications for patients from age 0 to 17 years, the mean (SD) number of clinical specialties at each age was 7.27 (1.4), and 12 clinical specialties were represented from ages 18 to 21 years.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study on device PMA statements, a gap was identified in both quantity and diversity of high-risk devices indicated for the pediatric population. Because the current scarcity of pediatric devices may limit therapeutic possibilities for children, this study represents a step toward quantifying this scarcity and identifying clinical specialties with the greatest need for pediatric device innovation and may help inform future device development efforts.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear.PurposeTo validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews).Study selection100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015).Data extraction2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths.ResultsMost trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant.LimitationUnknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results.ConclusionPrimary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials.Primary funding sourceNational Library of Medicine.

Dataset Information

Characteristics and use of patient-reported outcomes of clinical trials for high-risk neurological medical devices that received FDA premarket approval from 2001 to 2022.

Publications

Characteristics and use of patient-reported outcomes of clinical trials for high-risk neurological medical devices that received FDA premarket approval from 2001 to 2022.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets