Dataset Information

Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.

ABSTRACT: To analyze all recalls involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recall database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology device recalls to identify discipline-specific trends that may inform improvements in device safety.Recall data on RODs from 2002 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems). Outcomes included determined cause of recall, recall class (severity), quantity in commerce, time until recall termination (date FDA determines recall is complete), and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by Pearson ?2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions.There were 502 ROD recalls and 9534 other class II device recalls during 2002 to 2015. Most recalls were for external beam devices (66.7%) and planning systems (22.9%), and recall events peaked in 2011. Radiation oncology devices differed significantly from other devices in all recall outcomes (P?.04). Recall cause was commonly software related (49% vs 10% for other devices). Recall severity was more often moderate among RODs (97.6% vs 87.2%) instead of severe (0.2% vs 4.4%; P<.001). Time from 510(k) market approval to recall was shorter among RODs (P<.001) and progressively shortened over time. Radiation oncology devices had fewer recalled devices in commerce than other devices (P<.001).Compared with other class II devices, RODs experience recalls sooner after market approval and are trending sooner still. Most of these recalls were moderate in severity, and software issues are prevalent. Comprehensive analysis of recall data can identify areas for device improvement, such as better system design among RODs.

SUBMITTER: Connor MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5518627 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.

Connor Michael J MJ Tringale Kathryn K Moiseenko Vitali V Marshall Deborah C DC Moore Kevin K Cervino Laura L Atwood Todd T Brown Derek D Mundt Arno J AJ Pawlicki Todd T Recht Abram A Hattangadi-Gluth Jona A JA

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20170212 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>To analyze all recalls involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recall database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology device recalls to identify discipline-specific trends that may inform improvements in device safety.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>Recall data on RODs from 2002 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems). Outcomes included determine ...[more]

PMID: 28463163

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeRadiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices.Methods and materialsMAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions.ResultsThere were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P<.001). RODs were more likely to be evaluated by the manufacturer after an event (46.9% vs 33.0%) but less likely to be recalled (10.5% vs 37.9%) (P<.001). Device age and time since 510(k) approval were shorter among RODs (P<.001).ConclusionsCompared with other devices, RODs may experience adverse events sooner after manufacture and market approval. Close postmarket surveillance, improved software design, and manufacturer-user training may help mitigate these events.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-risk medical devices often undergo modifications, which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through various kinds of premarket approval (PMA) supplements. There have been multiple high-profile recalls of devices approved as PMA supplements.ObjectiveTo characterize the quality of the clinical studies and data (strength of evidence) used to support FDA approval of panel-track supplements (a type of PMA supplement pathway that is used for significant changes in a device or indication for use and always requires clinical data).Design and settingDescriptive study of clinical studies supporting panel-track supplements approved by the FDA between April 19, 2006, and October 9, 2015.ExposurePanel-track supplement approval.Main outcomes and measuresMethodological quality of studies including randomization, blinding, type of controls, clinical vs surrogate primary end points, use of post hoc analyses, and reporting of age and sex.ResultsEighty-three clinical studies supported the approval of 78 panel-track supplements, with 71 panel-track supplements (91%) supported by a single study. Of the 83 studies, 37 (45%) were randomized clinical trials and 25 (30%) were blinded. The median number of patients per study was 185 (interquartile range, 75-305), and the median follow-up duration was 180 days (interquartile range, 84-270 days). There were a total of 150 primary end points (mean [SD], 1.8 [1.2] per study), and 57 primary end points (38%) were compared with controls. Of primary end points with controls, 6 (11%) were retrospective controls and 51 (89%) were active controls. One hundred twenty-one primary end points (81%) were surrogate end points. Thirty-three studies (40%) did not report age and 25 (30%) did not report sex for all enrolled patients. The FDA required postapproval studies for 29 of 78 (37%) panel-track supplements.Conclusions and relevanceAmong clinical studies used to support FDA approval of high-risk medical device modifications, fewer than half were randomized, blinded, or controlled, and most primary outcomes were based on surrogate end points. These findings suggest that the quality of studies and data evaluated to support approval by the FDA of modifications of high-risk devices should be improved.

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:Policy Points Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recommendations and the agency's final actions exhibit high rates of agreement, with cases of disagreement tending to reflect the proposed action type and degree of advisory committee consensus. In the case of disagreements, the FDA tended to be less likely than its advisory committees to approve new products, approve new supplemental indications, or enact new safety changes. These findings raise important issues regarding the factors that differentially shape decision making by advisory committees and the FDA as an agency, including institutional or reputational concerns.ContextThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes advisory committees to provide external scientific counsel on potential agency actions and to inform regulatory decision making. The degree to which advisory committees and their respective agency divisions disagree on recommendations has not been well characterized across product and action types.MethodsWe examined public documents from FDA advisory committee meetings and medical product databases for all FDA advisory committee meetings from 2008 through 2015. We classified the 376 voting meetings in that period by medical product, regulatory, and advisory committee meeting characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the associations between these characteristics and discordance between the advisory committee's recommendations and the FDA's final actions.FindingsTwenty-two percent of the FDA's final actions were discordant with the advisory committee's recommendations. Of these, 75% resulted in the FDA making more restrictive decisions after favorable committee recommendations, and 25% resulted in the agency making less restrictive decisions after unfavorable committee recommendations. Discordance was associated with lower degrees of advisory committee consensus and was more likely for agency actions focused on medical product safety than for novel approvals or supplemental indications. Statements by public speakers, advisory committee conflicts of interest, and media coverage were not associated with discordance between the committee and the agency.ConclusionsThe FDA disagrees with the recommendation of its advisory committees a minority of the time, and in these cases it tends to be less likely to approve new products or supplemental indications and take safety actions. Deviations from recommendations thus offer an opportunity to understand the factors influencing decisions made by both the agency and its expert advisory groups.

Project description:Background Medical devices are used widely for virtually every disease and condition. Although devices are subject to regulation, the number of recalls, the clinical data requirements for regulation and the impact on patient safety are poorly understood. Methods The authors defined a device using European directives and used publicly available information on the Medicines and Health Regulatory Authority website to determine the number of devices recalled from January 2006 to December 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed Field Safety Notices and Medical Device Alerts. The authors wrote to manufacturers to obtain further information and clinical data, and summarised data by year, Conformité Européenne classification, indication, and Food and Drug Administration recall system of severity. Results In total, 2124 field safety notices were issued over the 5-year period, an increase of 1220% (62 in 2006 to 757 in 2010). 447 Medical Device Alerts were issued in the same period, and 44% were assessed as a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death. The authors wrote to 192 manufacturers of withdrawn devices and received 101 (53%) replies; only four (2.1%) provided the clinical data the authors requested. A lack of available transparent data prevented full analyses of the safety impact. Of the highest-risk recalled devices, more than half were related to the cardiovascular system (25%) or musculoskeletal system (33%), and 88% (95% CI 80% to 97%) were assessed as a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death. For low-risk devices, the figure was 34% (95% CI 26% to 42%). Conclusion The number of medical devices subject to recalls or warnings in the UK has risen dramatically. A substantial number of these devices may have caused serious adverse effects in patients and contributed to healthcare costs. Significant problems exist in the UK with a lack of access to transparent data and a registry of the highest-risk devices.

Project description:ImportanceIn the US, nearly all medical devices progress to market under the 510(k) pathway, which uses previously authorized devices (predicates) to support new authorizations. Current regulations permit manufacturers to use devices subject to a Class I recall-the FDA's most serious designation indicating a high probability of adverse health consequences or death-as predicates for new devices. The consequences for patient safety are not known.ObjectiveTo determine the risk of a future Class I recall associated with using a recalled device as a predicate device in the 510(k) pathway.Design and settingIn this cross-sectional study, all 510(k) devices subject to Class I recalls from January 2017 through December 2021 (index devices) were identified from the FDA's annual recall listings. Information about predicate devices was extracted from the Devices@FDA database. Devices authorized using index devices as predicates (descendants) were identified using a regulatory intelligence platform. A matched cohort of predicates was constructed to assess the future recall risk from using a predicate device with a Class I recall.Main outcomes and measuresDevices were characterized by their regulatory history and recall history. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated to compare the risk of future Class I recalls between devices descended from predicates with matched controls.ResultsOf 156 index devices subject to Class I recall from 2017 through 2021, 44 (28.2%) had prior Class I recalls. Predicates were identified for 127 index devices, with 56 (44.1%) using predicates with a Class I recall. One hundred four index devices were also used as predicates to support the authorization of 265 descendant devices, with 50 index devices (48.1%) authorizing a descendant with a Class I recall. Compared with matched controls, devices authorized using predicates with Class I recalls had a higher risk of subsequent Class I recall (6.40 [95% CI, 3.59-11.40]; P<.001).Conclusions and relevanceMany 510(k) devices subjected to Class I recalls in the US use predicates with a known history of Class I recalls. These devices have substantially higher risk of a subsequent Class I recall. Safeguards for the 510(k) pathway are needed to prevent problematic predicate selection and ensure patient safety.

Dataset Information

Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.

Publications

Medical Device Recalls in Radiation Oncology: Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 2002-2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets