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.

Geographic Access Disparities of Clinical Trials in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States.

To identify geographic and socioeconomic variables predictive of residential proximity to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) clinical trial locations. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: Census tract-level data from public datasets and trial-level data from ClinicalTrials.gov were analyzed. We calculated the driving distance (>60 miles) and time (>60 minutes) from the population-weighted US census tract centroid to the nearest clinical trial site. RESULTS: We identified 42 trials studying nAMD across 829 unique clinical trial sites in the United States. In a multivariable model, driving distance >60 miles had a significant association with rural location (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.86-7.96, P < .0001) and with Midwest (aOR 2.30; 95% CI 1.21-4.38, P = .01) and South (aOR 2.43; 95% CI 1.21-4.91, P = .01) as compared to the Northeast region, and with some college or an associate's degree, as compared to a bachelor's degree (aOR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04, P = .0007, and aOR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.10, P = .04, respectively). Lower odds of traveling >60 miles to the nearest nAMD trial site were associated with census tracts with a higher percentage of blacks (aOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99, P < .0001), Hispanics (aOR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P = .002), and Asians (aOR 0.90; 95% CI 0.88-0.93, P < .0001), as compared to whites, and with a lower percentage of the population <200% of the federal poverty level. Similar predictors were found in time traveled >60 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: There are geographic access disparities of clinical trial sites for nAMD in the United States.

Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences.

BACKGROUND: Although the peer review process is believed to ensure scientific rigor, enhance research quality, and improve manuscript clarity, many investigators are concerned that the process is too slow, too expensive, too unreliable, and too static. In this feasibility study, we sought to survey corresponding authors of recently published clinical research studies on the speed and efficiency of the publication process. METHODS: Web-based survey of corresponding authors of a 20% random sample of clinical research studies in MEDLINE-indexed journals with Ovid MEDLINE entry dates between December 1 and 15, 2016. Survey addressed perceived manuscript importance before first submission, approximate first submission and final acceptance dates, and total number of journal submissions, external peer reviews, external peer reviewers, and revisions requested, as well as whether authors would have considered publicly sharing their manuscript on an online platform instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: Of 1780 surveys distributed, 27 corresponding authors opted out or requested that we stop emailing them and 149 emails failed (e.g., emails that bounced n = 64, returned with an away from office message n = 70, or were changed/incorrect n = 15), leaving 1604 respondents, of which 337 completed the survey (21.0%). Respondents and non-respondents were similar with respect to study type and publication journals' impact factor, although non-respondent authors had more publications (p = 0.03). Among respondents, the median impact factor of the publications' journal was 2.7 (interquartile range (IQR), 2.0-3.6) and corresponding authors' median h-index and number of publications was 9 (IQR, 3-20) and 27 (IQR, 10-77), respectively. The median time from first submission to journal acceptance and publication was 5 months (IQR, 3-8) and 7 months (IQR, 5-12), respectively. Most respondents (62.0%, n = 209) rated the importance of their research as a 4 or 5 (5-point scale) prior to submission. Median number of journal submissions was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviews was 1 (IQR, 1-2), external peer reviewers was 3 (IQR, 2-4), and revisions requested was 1 (IQR, 1-1). Sharing manuscripts to a public online platform, instead of submitting to a peer-reviewed journal, would have been considered by 55.2% (n = 186) of respondents. CONCLUSION: Corresponding authors have high perceptions of their research and reported requiring few manuscript submissions prior to journal acceptance, most commonly by lower impact factor journals.

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals.

BACKGROUND: Registration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics. RESULTS: We reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the ICMJE's prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.