Dataset Information

Assessment of Data Sources That Support US Food and Drug Administration Medical Devices Safety Communications.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Medical Device Safety Communications (MDSCs) are used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to convey important new safety information to patients and health care professionals. The sources of initial safety signals that trigger MDSCs have not been described previously.

Objective

To assess the sources of initial safety signals that trigger publication of MDSCs and the potential associations among MDSC data source, type of safety issue, and subsequent FDA action.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional study, all MDSCs published on the FDA website between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019, were assessed. The MDSC characteristics, sources of initiating safety signals, regulatory approval or clearance pathways of the related medical devices, and subsequent FDA actions were collected from the FDA website.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was the distribution of sources of initial safety signals that led to publication of MDSCs. Secondary aims included exploration of potential associations among safety signal sources (direct reporting vs other), type of safety issue (death vs other), and FDA action (withdrawal vs other).

Results

A total of 93 MDSCs were evaluated. Median time from device approval to MDSC posting was 10 years (interquartile range, 6-16 years). The most common data sources that triggered MDSCs were direct reports to the FDA through the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) program (44 of 93 [47%]) followed by regulator-initiated assessments (32 [34%]). Common safety issues included patient injury (25 [27%]), potential wrong diagnoses (19 [20%]), and death (18 [19%]). Frequent FDA action after MDSC posting included recommendation for increased vigilance and caution (47 [51%]), complete device withdrawal (12 [13%]), and warnings of specific lots or clinics (12 [13%]). There was a statistically significant correlation between direct reports of adverse events to the FDA through the MDR program and risk of death as a safety issue (14 of 44 [32%] for direct reporting vs 4 of 49 [8%] for any other data sources, P = .007).

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, the most common source of initial safety signals that triggered MDSCs was direct reports of real-world adverse events to the FDA through the MDR program. The delayed detection of postmarketing adverse events highlights the importance of proactive identification of emerging device-related safety issues.

SUBMITTER: Tau N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7522775 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:ImportanceThe marketing of health care devices enabled for use with artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) is regulated in the US by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for approving and regulating medical devices. Currently, there are no uniform guidelines set by the FDA to regulate AI- or ML-enabled medical devices, and discrepancies between FDA-approved indications for use and device marketing require articulation.ObjectiveTo explore any discrepancy between marketing and 510(k) clearance of AI- or ML-enabled medical devices.Evidence reviewThis systematic review was a manually conducted survey of 510(k) approval summaries and accompanying marketing materials of devices approved between November 2021 and March 2022, conducted between March and November 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Analysis focused on the prevalence of discrepancies between marketing and certification material for AI/ML enabled medical devices.FindingsA total of 119 FDA 510(k) clearance summaries were analyzed in tandem with their respective marketing materials. The devices were taxonomized into 3 individual categories of adherent, contentious, and discrepant devices. A total of 15 devices (12.61%) were considered discrepant, 8 devices (6.72%) were considered contentious, and 96 devices (84.03%) were consistent between marketing and FDA 510(k) clearance summaries. Most devices were from the radiological approval committees (75 devices [82.35%]), with 62 of these devices (82.67%) adherent, 3 (4.00%) contentious, and 10 (13.33%) discrepant; followed by the cardiovascular device approval committee (23 devices [19.33%]), with 19 of these devices (82.61%) considered adherent, 2 contentious (8.70%) and 2 discrepant (8.70%). The difference between these 3 categories in cardiovascular and radiological devices was statistically significant (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, low adherence rates within committees were observed most often in committees with few AI- or ML-enabled devices. and discrepancies between clearance documentation and marketing material were present in one-fifth of devices surveyed.