Dataset Information

Comparison of rates of safety issues and reporting of trial outcomes for medical devices approved in the European Union and United States: cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate safety alerts and recalls, publication of key trial outcomes, and subsequent US approval of high profile medical devices introduced in the European Union.

Design

Cohort study.

Setting

Novel cardiovascular, orthopedic, and neurologic devices approved in the EU through Conformité Européenne marking between 2005 and 2010.

Data sources

Public and commercial databases searched up to January 2016 for press releases and announcements of approvals; public Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory authority databases for US approvals and safety alerts and recalls; and Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for peer reviewed publications.

Main outcome measures

We categorized the novelty of the devices in the study sample as a "major innovation" or an "other change," and extracted descriptive data about the devices and information on any safety alerts and withdrawals. Linear regression models examined factors associated with differential EU and US approvals. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with safety alerts and recalls and the publication of trial outcomes for devices categorized as major innovations. Models controlled for time, therapeutic category, regulatory pathway, size of sponsoring company, and indicator variables for devices approved first in the EU and devices approved only in the EU.

Results

67% (206/309) of devices identified were approved in both the US and the EU, of which 63% (129/206) were approved first in the EU. The unadjusted rate of safety alerts and recalls for devices approved first in the EU was 27% (62/232) compared with 14% (11/77) for devices approved first in the US. The adjusted hazard ratio for safety alerts and recalls was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.2) for devices approved first in the EU. The results of pivotal trials were published for 49% (37/75) of devices categorized as major innovations, with an overall publication rate of 37% five years after approval.

Conclusions

Devices approved first in the EU are associated with an increased risk of post-marketing safety alerts and recalls. Poor trial publication rates mean that patients and clinicians need greater regulatory transparency to make informed decisions about treatment.

SUBMITTER: Hwang TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4925918 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPolicymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings.Methods and findingsWe performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested categories that included medical devices and glossary terms attributable to the US Food and Drug Administration and the EU, following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. We supplemented this search with a review of the US Government Accountability Office online database for reports on US Food and Drug Administration device regulation, consultations with local experts in the field, manual reference mining of selected articles, and Google searches using the same key terms used in the Medline search. We found studies of premarket evaluation and timing (n?=?9), studies of device recalls (n?=?8), and surveys of device manufacturers (n?=?3). These studies provide evidence of quality problems in pre-market submissions in the US, provide conflicting views of device safety based largely on recall data, and relay perceptions of some industry leaders from self-surveys.ConclusionsFew studies have quantitatively assessed medical device regulation in either the US or EU. Existing studies of US and EU device approval and post-market evaluation performance suggest that policy reforms are necessary for both systems, including improving classification of devices in the US and promoting transparency and post-market oversight in the EU. Assessment of regulatory performance in both settings is limited by lack of data on post-approval safety outcomes. Changes to these device approval and post-marketing systems must be accompanied by ongoing research to ensure that there is better assessment of what works in either setting.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies.MethodsHTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1-agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2-semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies.ResultsIn total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non-MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices.ConclusionsThe lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace.

Project description:Background and purposeDementia is one of the most common disorders and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and decreased quality of life. The present guideline addresses important medical management issues including systematic medical follow-up, vascular risk factors in dementia, pain in dementia, use of antipsychotics in dementia and epilepsy in dementia.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was carried out. Based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, we developed a guideline. Where recommendations based on GRADE were not possible, a good practice statement was formulated.ResultsSystematic management of vascular risk factors should be performed in patients with mild to moderate dementia as prevention of cerebrovascular pathology may impact on the progression of dementia (Good Practice statement). Individuals with dementia (without previous stroke) and atrial fibrillation should be treated with anticoagulants (weak recommendation). Discontinuation of opioids should be considered in certain individuals with dementia (e.g. for whom there are no signs or symptoms of pain or no clear indication, or suspicion of side effects; Good Practice statement). Behavioral symptoms in persons with dementia should not be treated with mild analgesics (weak recommendation). In all patients with dementia treated with opioids, assessment of the individual risk-benefit ratio should be performed at regular intervals. Regular, preplanned medical follow-up should be offered to all patients with dementia. The setting will depend on the organization of local health services and should, as a minimum, include general practitioners with easy access to dementia specialists (Good Practice statement). Individuals with dementia and agitation and/or aggression should be treated with atypical antipsychotics only after all non-pharmacological measures have been proven to be without benefit or in the case of severe self-harm or harm to others (weak recommendation). Antipsychotics should be discontinued after cessation of behavioral disturbances and in patients in whom there are side effects (Good Practice statement). For treatment of epilepsy in individuals with dementia, newer anticonvulsants should be considered as first-line therapy (Good Practice statement).ConclusionThis GRADE-based guideline offers recommendations on several important medical issues in patients with dementia, and thus adds important guidance for clinicians. For some issues, very little or no evidence was identified, highlighting the importance of further studies within these areas.