Controversial FDA Decision Authorizes Menthol-Flavored E-Cigarettes Despite Risks to Youth.

This Medical News story examines the controversy surrounding the FDA's first authorization of flavored e-cigarettes, in this case menthol.

Is read-across for chemicals comparable to medical device equivalence and where to use it for conformity assessment?

Novel medical devices must conform to medical device regulation (MDR) for European market entry. Likewise, chemicals must comply with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) regulation. Both pose regulatory challenges for manufacturers, but concordantly provide an approach for transferring data from an already registered device or compound to the one undergoing accreditation. This is called equivalence for medical devices and read-across for chemicals. Although read-across is not explicitly prohibited in the process of medical device accreditation, it is usually not performed due to a lack of guidance and acceptance criteria from the authorities. Nonetheless, a scientifically justified read-across of material-based endpoints, as well as toxicological assessment of chemical aspects, such as extractables and leachables, can prevent failure of MDR device equivalence if data is lacking. Further, read-across, if applied correctly can facilitate the standard MDR conformity assessment. The need for read-across within medical device registration should let authorities to reconsider device accreditation and the formulation of respective guidance documents. Acceptance criteria like in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) read-across assessment framework (RAAF) are needed. This can reduce the impact of the MDR and help with keeping high European innovation device rate, beneficial for medical device patients.

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.

Renewing the Call for Reforms to Medical Device Safety-The Case of Penumbra.

Importance: Strengthening premarket and postmarket surveillance of medical devices has long been an area of focus for health policy makers. The recent class I recall (the most serious of the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] recalls) of reperfusion catheters manufactured by Penumbra, a US-based medical device company, illustrates issues of device safety and oversight that mandate attention. Objectives: To review the regulatory history and clinical evidence of the Penumbra JET 7 Reperfusion Catheter with Xtra Flex Technology (JET 7) and use the device recall as a case study of the challenges associated with clinical evaluation, transparency, and oversight of medical devices in the US. Evidence: Regulatory history and clinical evidence for the Penumbra medical devices were analyzed through a qualitative review of decision letters in the Access FDA database for medical devices and medical device reports in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database and a review of market data (eg, earnings calls, company communications) and clinical literature. Findings: The JET 7 device was subjected to a class I recall following more than 200 adverse event reports, 14 of which involved patient deaths. Regulatory analysis indicated that each of the Penumbra reperfusion catheters was cleared under the 510(k) pathway (which allows devices to be authorized with limited to no clinical evidence), with limited submission of either new clinical or animal data. Clinical evidence for Penumbra devices was generated from nonrandomized, single-arm trials with small sample sizes. The regulatory issues raised by JET 7 are reflective of broader challenges for medical device regulation. Opportunities for reform include strengthening premarket evidence requirements, requiring safety reporting with unique device identifiers, and mandating active methods of postmarket surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance: The case study of JET 7 highlights the long-standing gaps in medical device oversight and renews the impetus to build on the Institute of Medicine recommendations and reform FDA medical device regulation to protect public health.

Quantification of US Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval Statements for High-Risk Medical Devices With Pediatric Age Indications.

Importance: Medical 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. Objective: To identify and characterize high-risk devices with pediatric age indications derived from PMA statements. Design, Setting, and Participants: In 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 Measures: The 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. Results: A 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 Relevance: In 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.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's role in improving radiation dose management for medical X-ray imaging devices.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been concerned with minimizing the unnecessary radiation exposure of people for half a century. Manufacturers of medical X-ray imaging devices are important partners in this effort. Medical X-ray imaging devices are regulated by FDA under both its electronic product regulations andits medical device regulations. FDA also publishes guidance documents that represent FDA's current thinking on a topic and provide a suggested or recommended approach to meet the requirements of a regulation or statute. FDA encourages manufacturers to develop medical devices that conform to voluntary consensus standards. Use of these standards is a central element of FDA's system to ensure that all medical devices marketed in the U.S. meet safety and effectiveness requirements. FDA staff participate actively in the development and maintenance of these standards, often advancing or introducing new safety and dose management requirements. Use of voluntary consensus standards reduces the amount of time necessary to evaluate a premarket submission and reduces the burden on manufacturers. FDA interacts with industry and other stakeholders through meetings with industry groups, public meetings, public communications, and through the development of voluntary consensus standards. In these interactions, FDA staff introduce new concepts for improving the safety of these devices and provide support for similar initiatives from professional organizations. FDA works with all stakeholders to achieve its mission of protecting and promoting the public health.

A Systematic Review of Nonsurgical Vulvovaginal Restoration Devices: An Evidence-Based Examination of Safety and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of vulvovaginal restoration devices were called into question in a U.S. Food and Drug Administration statement on July 30, 2018, claiming that women are being harmed by laser and other energy-based devices. The goal of this systematic literature review was to assess existing data, determine gaps in evidence, and propose opportunities for continued investigation pertaining to laser and energy-based vaginal restoration techniques. METHODS: A review of literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted on January 9, 2019, and articles up to this point were considered. For inclusion, studies had to be available or translated in English and relate to clinical medicine, direct patient care, and nonsurgical energy-based vulvovaginal procedures. RESULTS: The authors found five level I studies, 19 level II studies, four level III studies, and 46 level IV studies that used 15 different devices. Various degrees of improvement of symptoms were reported in all studies. Adverse events/side effects were noted in two of the 13 radiofrequency device studies, 15 of the 23 erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet device studies, and 17 of the 37 carbon dioxide device studies. The majority of adverse events were considered mild. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies resulted in mild to no adverse side effects. However, there is a large gap in level I evidence. As a result, the authors emphasize the necessity of supplemental data surrounding this subject and suggest that additional randomized sham-controlled studies be conducted to further investigate vulvovaginal restoration devices in an effort to address women's health issues.

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

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.

Materiovigilance Programme of India: A scheme to assure cardiovascular devices safety surveillance.

The Materiovigilance Programme of India (MvPI) has been implemented to ensure the safety of medical devices including cardiovascular devices (MD-CVD). This article describes the role of MvPI surveillance system that comprehensively collects, collates and analyses the adverse events associated with MD-CVD and also its supplementing role to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization for taking regulatory decision to reduce the health burden on account of adverse events due to medical devices to the patients based on the evidence based data. This article is expected to stimulate ethical reporting of adverse events due to MD-CVD at MvPI.

Nonvalidated Home Blood Pressure Devices Dominate the Online Marketplace in Australia: Major Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Management.

Self-home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended to guide clinical decisions on hypertension and is used worldwide for cardiovascular risk management. People usually make their own decisions when purchasing BP devices, which can be made online. If patients purchase nonvalidated devices (those not proven accurate according to internationally accepted standards), hypertension management may be based on inaccurate readings resulting in under- or over-diagnosis or treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the number, type, percentage validated, and cost of home BP devices available online. A search of online businesses selling devices for home BP monitoring was conducted. Multinational companies make worldwide deliveries, so searches were restricted to BP devices available for one nation (Australia) as an example of device availability through the global online marketplace. Validation status of BP devices was determined according to established protocols. Fifty nine online businesses, selling 972 unique BP devices were identified. These included 278 upper-arm cuff devices (18.3% validated), 162 wrist-cuff devices (8.0% validated), and 532 wrist-band wearables (0% validated). Most BP devices (92.4%) were stocked by international e-commerce businesses (eg, eBay, Amazon), but only 5.5% were validated. Validated cuff BP devices were more expensive than nonvalidated devices: median (interquartile range) of 101.1 (75.0-151.5) versus 67.4 (30.4-112.8) Australian Dollars. Nonvalidated BP devices dominate the online marketplace and are sold at lower cost than validated ones, which is a major barrier to accurate home BP monitoring and cardiovascular risk management. Before purchasing a BP device, people should check it has been validated at https://www.stridebp.org.

Impact of Health Care Reform on Technology and Innovation.

The medical device industry has long been subject to criticism for lack of price transparency and minimal regulations surrounding device approval, which have functioned as barriers to providing quality and cost-effective care. Recent health care reforms aimed at overcoming these barriers, including improving market approval regulations, increasing postmarket surveillance, and using comparative effectiveness research, have drastically changed industry practices. These reforms have also prompted increasingly cost-aware health care practices, which have encouraged new trends in medical device innovation such as frugal innovation and deinstitutionalization. This article explores the challenges faced by industry, physicians, and patients in light of these reforms.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval.

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.