Modernizing Medical Device Regulation: Challenges and Opportunities for the 510(k) Clearance Process.

Nearly all medical devices reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are authorized via the 510(k) clearance process. Established in 1976, this review pathway bases authorizations on the comparability of new devices to previously authorized devices ("predicates"). This evaluation usually does not require clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness. Advocates of the 510(k) clearance process tout its support for device innovation and rapid market access, and critics of the 510(k) clearance process express that it may inadequately protect patient safety. In September 2023, the FDA issued 3 guidance documents that, if finalized, would significantly change medical device regulation. This article provides clinical and regulatory context for the proposed guidance documents, which focus on predicate selection, clinical testing requirements, and implantable devices, and identifies opportunities for further reforms that promote transparency and patient safety.

Incremental Revisions across the Life Span of Ophthalmic Devices after Initial Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval, 1979-2015.

PURPOSE: To characterize the frequency, nature, and regulatory mechanisms by which ophthalmic devices are iteratively modified after initial Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Premarket Approval (PMA). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA data. PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmic devices initially approved via the FDA's PMA pathway between January 1, 1979 and December 31, 2015. METHODS: We used the FDA's PMA Database to identify and characterize initial approvals and subsequent postmarket modifications to Class III ophthalmic devices. The FDA Recalls Database was used to identify associated safety events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median iterated life span (timespan across which modifications occurred after initial PMA) and median number of supplements approved per device, by device type, and overall, stratified by regulatory pathway and modification type. RESULTS: Between 1979 and 2015, the FDA approved 168 original ophthalmic devices via the PMA pathway and 2813 subsequent modifications. More than one third (n = 64; 38%) of original approvals were intraocular lenses. Overall, devices underwent a median of 11 postmarket modifications (interquartile range [IQR], 3-24.8) across a median 10.0-year iterated life span (IQR, 4.1-16.7). The majority of devices (n = 144; 86%) underwent more than 1 postapproval modification, including more than 1 design modification (n = 84; 50%). The median number of changes altering device design or labeling was 3.5 (IQR, 1-9). Although manufacturing alterations (n = 834 of 2813; 30%) were the most frequent type of revision, changes involving device design (n = 667; 24%) and labeling (n = 417; 15%) were common. Recalled devices underwent more frequent postapproval modifications per year (median, 1.4; IQR, 0.7-2.3; mean, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9) in the period preceding recall than did nonrecalled devices (median, 0.5; IQR, 0.2-1.1; mean, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.0) across their market approval period (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most ophthalmic devices approved via the FDA's PMA pathway have undergone extensive revisions, including serial design and labeling changes, since their initial approvals, often without supporting clinical data. Ophthalmologists should take into consideration that cumulative revisions may render the clinical evidence that supported an original FDA approval less relevant to newer device models.

How do Orthopaedic Devices Change After Their Initial FDA Premarket Approval?

BACKGROUND: The 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/PURPOSES: We 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? METHODS: All 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. RESULTS: Seventy 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. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively 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 RELEVANCE: As 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.

Orthopaedic Surgeons Receive the Most Industry Payments to Physicians but Large Disparities are Seen in Sunshine Act Data.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments made to physicians by drug and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations are now reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a part of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Initial reports from the program show that orthopaedic surgeons lead all physician specialties in total and average industry payments. However, before further discussion of these payments and their implications can take place, it remains to be seen whether these figures are a true reflection of the field of orthopaedic surgery in general, rather than the result of a few outlier physicians in the field. In addition, the nature and sources of these funds should be determined to better inform the national dialogue surrounding these payments. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) How do industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons compare with payments to physicians and surgeons in other fields, in terms of median payments and the Gini index of disparity? (2) How much do payments to the highest-receiving orthopaedic surgeons contribute to total payments? (3) What kind of industry payments are orthopaedic surgeons receiving? (4) How much do the highest-paying manufacturers contribute to total payments to orthopaedic surgeons? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the most recent version of the CMS Sunshine Act Open Payments database released on December 19, 2014, containing data on payments made between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Data on total payments to individual physicians, physician specialty, the types of payments made, and the manufacturers making payments were reviewed. The Gini index of statistical dispersion was calculated for payments made to orthopaedic surgeons and compared with payments made to physicians and surgeons in all other medical specialties. A Gini index of 0 indicates complete equality of payments to everyone in the population, whereas an index of 1 indicates complete inequality, or all income going to one individual. RESULTS: A total of 15,376 orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments during the 5-month period were identified, accounting for USD 109,846,482. The median payment to orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments was USD 121 (interquartile range, USD 34-619). The top 10% of orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments (1538 surgeons) received at least USD 4160 and accounted for 95% of total payments. Royalties and patent licenses accounted for 69% of all industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Even as a relatively small specialty, orthopaedic surgeons received substantial payments from industry (more than USD 110 million) during the 5-month study period. Whether there is a true return of value from these payments remains to be seen; however, future ethical and policy discussions regarding industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons should take into account the large disparities in payments that are present and also the nature of the payments being made. It is possible that patients and policymakers may view industry payments to orthopaedic surgeons more positively in light of these new findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Economic and Decision Analysis.

Characteristics of Clinical Studies Conducted Over the Total Product Life Cycle of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices Receiving FDA Premarket Approval in 2010 and 2011.

IMPORTANCE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves high-risk medical devices, those that support or sustain human life or present potential unreasonable risk to patients, via the Premarket Approval (PMA) pathway. The generation of clinical evidence to understand device safety and effectiveness is shifting from predominantly premarket to continual study throughout the total product life cycle. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical evidence generated for high-risk therapeutic devices over the total product life cycle. DESIGN AND SETTING: All clinical studies of high-risk therapeutic devices receiving initial market approval via the PMA pathway in 2010 and 2011 identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents as of October 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Studies were characterized by type (pivotal, studies that served as the basis of FDA approval; FDA-required postapproval studies [PAS]; or manufacturer/investigator-initiated); premarket or postmarket; status (completed, ongoing, or terminated/unknown); and design features, including enrollment, comparator, and longest duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up. RESULTS: In 2010 and 2011, 28 high-risk therapeutic devices received initial marketing approval via the PMA pathway. We identified 286 clinical studies of these devices: 82 (28.7%) premarket and 204 (71.3%) postmarket, among which there were 52 (18.2%) nonpivotal premarket studies, 30 (10.5%) pivotal premarket studies, 33 (11.5%) FDA-required PAS, and 171 (59.8%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies. Six of 33 (18.2%) PAS and 20 of 171 (11.7%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies were reported as completed. No postmarket studies were identified for 5 (17.9%) devices; 3 or fewer were identified for 13 (46.4%) devices overall. Median enrollment was 65 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 25-111), 241 patients (IQR, 147-415), 222 patients (IQR, 119-640), and 250 patients (IQR, 60-800) for nonpivotal premarket, pivotal, FDA-required PAS, and manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies, respectively. Approximately half of all studies used no comparator (pivotal: 13/30 [43.3%]; completed postmarket: 16/26 [61.5%]; ongoing postmarket: 70/153 [45.8%]). Median duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up was 3.0 months (IQR, 3.0-12.0), 9.0 months (IQR, 0.3-12.0), and 12.0 months (IQR, 7.0-24.0) for pivotal, completed postmarket, and ongoing postmarket studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among high-risk therapeutic devices approved via the FDA PMA pathway, total product life cycle evidence generation varied in both the number and quality of premarket and postmarket studies, with approximately 13% of initiated postmarket studies completed between 3 and 5 years after FDA approval.

Medicare Advantage Prior Authorization Requirements for Otolaryngologic Procedures in 2021.

Little is known about the extent of prior authorization requirements in otolaryngology. We performed a secondary analysis of data comparing prior authorization (PA) policies across 5 major Medicare Advantage insurers to estimate the counterfactual proportion of 2021 Medicare Part B fee-for-service spending and utilization for commonly performed otolaryngologic procedures that would have required PA. The counterfactual proportion of spending (range: 20.4%-27.6%) and utilization (range: 1.8%-4.5%) requiring PA was relatively consistent across insurers and largely attributable to rhinologic procedures. However, PA requirements for specific services varied widely among insurers. Among the 70 (of 196; 35.7%) services subject to PA by any insurer, nearly half were subject to PA by a single insurer (n = 34; 48.6%). Only 10 (14.3%) services were subject to PA by 4 (n = 6; 8.6%) or 5 (n = 4; 5.7%) insurers. These discrepancies illustrate the challenges of navigating discordant insurer policies for otolaryngologists and raise concerns about the validity of certain PA requirements.

Spending, utilization, and coverage for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis therapies among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.

KEY POINTS: CRSwNP-specific mean total annual spending ranged from $5,837 (EDS-FLU) to $28,058 (dupilumab). Most CRSwNP patients receiving biologics had comorbid asthma and did not undergo sinus surgery. While biologics were covered by most Medicare Part D plans, only 37% of plans covered EDS-FLU.