An integrated benefit-risk assessment of cobalt-containing alloys used in medical devices: Implications for regulatory requirements in the European Union.

In 2017, the European Union (EU) Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) recommended the classification of metallic cobalt (Co) as Category 1B with respect to its carcinogenic and reproductive hazard potential and Category 2 for mutagenicity but did not evaluate the relevance of these classifications for patients exposed to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) used in medical devices. CoCA are inherently different materials from Co metal from a toxicological perspective and thus require a separate assessment. CoCA are biocompatible materials with a unique combination of properties including strength, durability, and a long history of safe use that make them uniquely suited for use in a wide-range of medical devices. Assessments were performed on relevant preclinical and clinical carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity data for Co and CoCA to meet the requirements under the EU Medical Device Regulation triggered by the ECHA re-classification (adopted in October 2019 under the 14th Adaptation to Technical Progress to CLP) and to address their relevance to patient safety. The objective of this review is to present an integrated overview of these assessments, a benefit-risk assessment and an examination of potential alternative materials. The data support the conclusion that the exposure to CoCA in medical devices via clinically relevant routes does not represent a hazard for carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity. Additionally, the risk for the adverse effects that are known to occur with elevated Co concentrations (e.g., cardiomyopathy) are very low for CoCA implant devices (infrequent reports often reflecting a unique catastrophic failure event out of millions of patients) and negligible for CoCA non-implant devices (not measurable/no case reports). In conclusion, the favorable benefit-risk profile also in relation to possible alternatives presented herein strongly support continued use of CoCA in medical devices.

Carcinogenic hazard assessment of cobalt-containing alloys in medical devices: Review of in vivo studies.

Cobalt (Co) alloys have been used for over seven decades in a wide range of medical devices, including, but not limited to, hip and knee implants, surgical tools, and vascular stents, due to their favorable biocompatibility, durability, and mechanical properties. A recent regulatory hazard classification review by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) resulted in the classification of metallic Co as a Class 1B Carcinogen (presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans), primarily based on inhalation rodent carcinogenicity studies with pure metallic Co. The ECHA review did not specifically consider the carcinogenicity hazard potential of forms or routes of Co that are relevant for medical devices. The purpose of this review is to present a comprehensive assessment of the available in vivo preclinical data on the carcinogenic hazard potential of exposure to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) in medical devices by relevant routes. In vivo data were reviewed from 33 preclinical studies that examined the impact of Co exposure on local and systemic tumor incidence in rats, mice, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Across these studies, there was no significant increase of local or systemic tumors in studies relevant for medical devices. Taken together, the relevant in vivo data led to the conclusion that CoCA in medical devices are not a carcinogenic hazard in available in vivo models. While specific patient and implant factors cannot be fully replicated using in vivo models, the available in vivo preclinical data support that CoCA in medical devices are unlikely a carcinogenic hazard to patients.

Differences between neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons in classifying cervical dislocation injuries and making assessment and treatment decisions: a multicenter reliability study.

Variability exists in the management of cervical spinal injuries. The goal of this study was to assess the effect of training specialty (orthopedic surgery vs neurosurgery) on management of cervical dislocations. Twenty-nine spine surgeons reviewed 10 cases of cervical dislocation injuries. For each of the 10 cases, the surgeons evaluated 3 clinical scenarios, which included a neurologically intact patient, a patient with an incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI), and a patient with complete SCI. Surgeons determined whether a unilateral or bilateral facet dislocation was present and whether pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or immediate closed reduction was indicated. Management decisions were re-assessed after review of MRIs. While spine surgeons may agree on what they see on MRI and how they classify certain cervical injuries irrespective of training, significant differences of opinion continue to exist regarding the therapeutic implications of this information, specifically, whether to order a pretreatment MRI and how to manage the injury.

Intrarater and interrater reliability and validity in the assessment of the mechanism of injury and integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex: a novel injury severity scoring system for thoracolumbar injuries. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting On Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2005.

OBJECT: A new classification and treatment algorithm for thoracolumbar injuries was recently introduced by Vaccaro and colleagues in 2005. A thoracolumbar injury severity scale (TLISS) was proposed for grading and guiding treatment for these injuries. The scale is based on the following: 1) the mechanism of injury; 2) the integrity of the posterior ligamentous complex (PLC); and 3) the patient's neurological status. The reliability and validity of assessing injury mechanism and the integrity of the PLC was assessed. METHODS: Forty-eight spine surgeons, consisting of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, reviewed 56 clinical thoracolumbar injury case histories. Each was classified and scored to determine treatment recommendations according to a novel classification system. After 3 months the case histories were reordered and the physicians repeated the exercise. Validity of this classification was good among reviewers; the vast majority (> 90%) agreed with the system's treatment recommendations. Surgeons were unclear as to a cogent description of PLC disruption and fracture mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: The TLISS demonstrated acceptable reliability in terms of intra- and interobserver agreement on the algorithm's treatment recommendations. Replacing injury mechanism with a description of injury morphology and better definition of PLC injury will improve inter- and intraobserver reliability of this injury classification system.