Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Data Requirement for Animal-Derived Wound Care Devices: Limitations of the 510(k) Regulatory Pathway.
DeLong, Michael R; Wells, Michael W; Chang, Irene A; Vardanian, Andrew J; Harris, Hobart.
  • DeLong MR; From the division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (DeLong, Vardanian).
  • Wells MW; From the division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (DeLong, Vardanian).
  • Chang IA; Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland OH (Wells, Chang).
  • Vardanian AJ; Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Cleveland OH (Wells, Chang).
  • Harris H; From the division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (DeLong, Vardanian).
J Am Coll Surg ; 238(2): 218-224, 2024 Feb 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37796150
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Device classification and preclinical data requirements for animal-derived wound care products were recently reviewed by the FDA. Given the possible performance differences for these products, we evaluated the FDA data requirements as well as the published literature for all animal-derived wound care products ever cleared through the FDA. STUDY

DESIGN:

The publicly available online database was queried for all animal-derived wound products; premarket data requirements for each product were recorded. A PubMed search was conducted to determine the number of published clinical studies for each product, and manufacturer websites were accessed to obtain the price for each product.

RESULTS:

A total of 132 animal-derived wound products have been cleared by the FDA since the Center for Devices and Radiological Health was established in 1976. Of these, 114 had a publicly available clearance statement online. Preclinical biocompatibility testing was performed in 85 products (74.6%) and referenced in 10 (8.8%). Preclinical animal wound healing testing took place in 17 (14.9%). Only 9 products (7.9%) had clinical safety testing, and no products had clinical effectiveness data. We found no published peer-reviewed clinical data for 97 products (73%). Cost was infrequently available but ranged from $4.79 to $2,178 per unit.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although the current pathway is appropriate for efficiently clearing new wound care products, clinical effectiveness is not included in the regulatory review process. Wound care products are primarily evaluated by the FDA for safety and biocompatibility. Thus, any claims of clinical effectiveness require independent validation, which is often lacking.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Aprobación de Recursos Límite: Animals País como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Aprobación de Recursos Límite: Animals País como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article