Use of Recalled Devices in New Device Authorizations Under the US Food and Drug Administration's 510(k) Pathway and Risk of Subsequent Recalls.

Importance: In 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. Objective: To 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 Setting: In 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 Measures: Devices 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. Results: Of 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 Relevance: Many 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.

Association Between Regulatory Submission Characteristics and Recalls of Medical Devices Receiving 510(k) Clearance.

Importance: Most regulated medical devices enter the US market via the 510(k) regulatory submission pathway, wherein manufacturers demonstrate that applicant devices are "substantially equivalent" to 1 or more "predicate" devices (legally marketed medical devices with similar intended use). Most recalled medical devices are 510(k) devices. Objective: To examine the association between characteristics of predicate medical devices and recall probability for 510(k) devices. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this exploratory cross-sectional analysis of medical devices cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2003 and 2018 via the 510(k) regulatory submission pathway, linear probability models were used to examine associations between a 510(k) device's recall status and characteristics of its predicate medical devices. Public documents for the 510(k) medical devices were collected using FDA databases. A text extraction algorithm was applied to identify predicate medical devices cited in 510(k) regulatory submissions. Algorithm-derived metadata were combined with 2003-2020 FDA recall data. Exposures: Citation of predicate medical devices with certain characteristics in 510(k) regulatory submissions, including the total number of predicate medical devices cited by the applicant device, the age of the predicate medical devices, the lack of similarity of the predicate medical devices to the applicant device, and the recall status of the predicate medical devices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Class I or class II recall of a 510(k) medical device between its FDA regulatory clearance date and December 31, 2020. Results: The sample included 35 176 medical devices, of which 4007 (11.4%) were recalled. The applicant devices cited a mean of 2.6 predicate medical devices, with mean ages of 3.6 years and 7.4 years for the newest and oldest, respectively, predicate medical devices. Of the applicant devices, 93.9% cited predicate medical devices with no ongoing recalls, 4.3% cited predicate medical devices with 1 ongoing class I or class II recall, 1.0% cited predicate medical devices with 2 ongoing recalls, and 0.8% cited predicate medical devices with 3 or more ongoing recalls. Applicant devices citing predicate medical devices with 3 or more ongoing recalls were significantly associated with a 9.31-percentage-point increase (95% CI, 2.84-15.77 percentage points) in recall probability compared with devices without ongoing recalls of predicate medical devices, or an 81.2% increase in recall probability relative to the mean recall probability. A 1-SD increase in the total number of predicate medical devices cited by the applicant device was significantly associated with a 1.25-percentage-point increase (95% CI, 0.62-1.87 percentage points) in recall probability, or an 11.0% increase in recall probability relative to the mean recall probability. A 1-SD increase in the newest age of a predicate medical device was significantly associated with a 0.78-percentage-point decrease (95% CI, 1.29-0.30 percentage points) in recall probability, or a 6.8% decrease in recall probability relative to the mean recall probability. Conclusions and Relevance: This exploratory cross-sectional study of 510(k) medical devices cleared by the FDA between 2003 and 2018 demonstrated significant associations between 510(k) submission characteristics and recalls of medical devices. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these associations.

Lack of Regulations and Conflict of Interest Transparency of New Hernia Surgery Technologies.

BACKGROUND: Medical devices introduced to market through the 510K process often have limited research of low quality and substantial conflict of interest (COI). By the time high-quality safety and effectiveness research is performed, thousands of patients may have already been treated by the device. Our aim was to systematically review the trends of outcomes, research quality, and financial relationships of published studies related to de-adopted meshes for ventral hernia repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature was systematically reviewed using PubMed to obtain all published studies related to three de-adopted meshes: C-QUR, Physiomesh, and meshes with polytetrafluoroethylene. Primary outcome was change in cumulative percentage of subjects with positive published outcomes. Secondary outcome was percentage of published manuscript with COI. RESULTS: A total of 723 articles were screened, of which, 129 were analyzed and included a total of 8081 subjects. Percentage of subjects with positive outcomes decreased over time for all groups: (1) C-QUR from 100% in 2009 to 22% in 2018, (2) Physiomesh from 100% in 2011 to 20% in 2018, and (3) polytetrafluoroethylene from 100% in 1979 to 49% in 2018. Authors of only 20% of articles self-reported no COI, most representing later publications and were more likely to show neutral or negative results. CONCLUSIONS: Among three de-adopted meshes, early publications demonstrated overly optimistic results followed by disappointing outcomes. Skepticism over newly introduced, poorly proven therapies is essential to prevent adoption of misleading practices and products. Devices currently approved under the 510K processes should undergo blinded, randomized controlled trials before introduction to the market.

Recalls and Premarket Review Systems for High-Risk Medical Devices in Japan.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, different regulatory tracks prior to marketing have been applied to medical devices dependent on whether they have predefined certification or approval standards in addition to the risk category. A regulatory track for some high-risk medical devices (class III or IV in Japan) using certification standards newly became effective in 2014. This study aimed to explore potential candidate devices for the certification track. METHODS: We analyzed approval, recall, and classification information databases for medical devices in Japan. High-risk medical devices approved between 2010 and 2014 were examined (N = 3222). The medical devices were categorized into 3 groups based on availability of certification or approval standards. Recall rates were calculated for each group and for each device category within the groups. Recall reasons were classified into two main categories: design problems and other problems. RESULTS: The overall recall rates were 12.1% in the group with certification standards (recalled n = 17, approved n = 141), 4.1% in the group with approval standards (recalled n = 49, approved n = 1187), and 5.6% in the group without either standard (recalled n = 106, approved n = 1894). The design recall rates were 9.2%, 1.4%, and 1.6%, respectively. The recall rate for bio-phenomena-monitoring devices was high (recalled n = 13, approved n = 31; 41.9%), which contributed to the high recall rate of the group with certification standards. CONCLUSIONS: The overall recall rates and the recall rates due to design problems varied considerably across and within the 3 groups. As possible good candidates for the transition into the new certification track, high-risk medical devices with low recall rates in frequently approved device categories should be given priority.

Meeting the demands of on-going metal-on-metal hip surveillance through nurse led services.

This paper discusses the implications following a recall of all metal-on-metal hip replacements by the Medicines and Healthcare products regulatory Agency (MHRA). Issues identified were the release of metal ions from the metal implants. These ions were found to seep into local tissues and cause reactions that destroyed muscle and bone leaving some patients with long term disability. At the centre surveillance was monitored by an extension of the current Nurse Led services using existing staff and resources. There were a significant number of patients that required monitoring and there were difficulties contacting these patients and ensuring that they understood the importance of attending a clinic.

Assessment of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medical device recalls.

Medical device recalls have called attention to the device approval process in the United States. The premarket approval (PMA) process requires clinical trials to evaluate safety and effectiveness, whereas the expedited 510(k) process does not. The 510(k) process has been considered a source of increased recalls. This study aimed to assess the relative safety of medical device approval pathways based on the numbers of approvals and recalls. Data on recalls in the United States from January 2005 to December 2012 were collected from the Food and Drug Administration Web site. Over 8 years, 30,002 devices were approved, 5,728 by PMA (19%) and 24,274 (81%) by 510(k). There were 249 recalls due to serious risks, 0.45% of PMA approvals, and 0.92% of 510(k)-cleared devices, p <0.001. Over 1/2 of the recalls were during the first 2 years on the market. Percentage of recalled PMA devices was unchanged over the 8 years, whereas 510(k) recalls increased in 2010 to 2012 (from 0.65% to 1.39%, p <0.001). Cardiovascular devices represent the largest class of recalls (27%). The proportions of recalled PMA and 510(k) cardiovascular devices were the same as for all medical devices until 2011, but 510(k) recalls dramatically decreased in 2012 to the lowest recall rate seen (0.73%). In conclusion, recall rates were the same for 510(k)- and PMA-approved devices in 2005 to 2009 and increased for 510(k) devices subsequently. Modifying the 510(k) process with more rigorous performance testing, a conditional 2-year approval and a mandatory registry may be an approach to reduce recalls.

Dealing with recalled components.

It is often difficult for orthopedic surgeons to react to a situation where a particular implant that they have been using for many years is suddenly recalled from the market by either the manufacturer or the United States Food and Drug Administration. This report briefly summarizes some of the issues that may arise when such a circumstance occurs. We briefly outline what an implant recall is, what measures the orthopedic surgeon should take when an implant is permanently recalled, what litigation issues may arise, and describe the resources available to the orthopedic surgeon for the evaluation of these patients. It is important to understand that the manufacturer and the insurance companies often bear the burden of the financial loss, although the anguish, time loss for patients, and the effect on clinical practice are issues which are largely inevitable. Nevertheless, it is essential for the orthopedic community to be aware and be prepared for these unlikely situations should they occur, so that we will remain the patient's best advocate at all times.

How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers 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 FINDINGS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: Few 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.

Medical device regulation in Australia: safe and effective?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, characteristics and outcomes of reports of possible harms related to medical devices submitted to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) using data made publicly available on the TGA website. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis, conducted in January 2012, of data made publicly available on the TGA website from January 2000 to December 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and nature of reports of medical device incidents, recalls and alerts. RESULTS: Up to December 2011, 6812 incidents involving medical devices were reported to the TGA, although there were several periods where data were unavailable. Incidents were reported more frequently in later years, most often by device sponsors, and were often attributed to mechanical problems. 295 deaths and 2357 serious injuries have been related to incidents, with serious injury (597) highest in 2009. Most incidents involving medical devices were not investigated (47.5%), or, after investigation, no further action was taken (25.0%). During the same time period, there were 35 medical device recalls and 34 medical device alerts issued by the TGA, with no consistent increase over time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite TGA reform proposals, greater transparency is still needed. Issues that have not been addressed include patchy and conflicting data in the public domain and lack of explanations for the large proportion of uninvestigated reports. To maintain public confidence in the national regulatory system these problems need to be resolved.

The role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in device evaluation and monitoring.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used by performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through October 2009 for articles and references related to devices and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by using the keywords "FDA" and "devices." In addition, the Web was searched using the same keywords. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration website was also thoroughly reviewed. Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about these issues. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.