Class I Recalls of Cardiovascular Devices Between 2013 and 2022 : A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular devices account for one third of all Class I recalls, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) most severe designation, indicating a reasonable probability of "serious adverse health consequences or death." Understanding recalls and their causes is important for patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To characterize Class I recalls of cardiovascular devices and the clinical evidence supporting authorization. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, cardiovascular device recalls from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2022 were identified using the FDA's annual log. Information about devices was extracted from publicly available FDA decision summaries. SETTING: The FDA Medical Device Recalls database. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiovascular devices with Class I recalls. MEASUREMENTS: Recalls were characterized by their causes and scope. Devices were characterized by their regulatory history (product code, special designations) and clinical evidence (premarket testing, postmarket surveillance). Clinical studies were analyzed for quality, including end point selection (clinical vs. surrogate, use of composites). RESULTS: From 2013 to 2022, there were 137 Class I recall events affecting 157 unique cardiovascular devices, of which 112 (71.3%) were moderate-risk 510(k) devices and 45 (28.7%) were high-risk premarket approval (PMA) devices. Recalls affected a median of 7649 units (IQR, 953 to 28 446) and were most commonly attributed to device design (43 [31.4%]). Forty-two (26.8%) devices had multiple Class I recalls. Thirty (19.1%) devices underwent premarket clinical testing (7 [6.2%] 510(k) devices, 17 [85.0%] PMA devices, and 6 [24.0%] PMA supplement devices). Most studies used surrogate (27 [79.4%]) and composite (24 [70.6%]) measures as primary end points. Twenty-two (48.9%) PMA devices had required postapproval studies, with 14 reporting delays. No 510(k) devices were subject to postmarket surveillance. LIMITATION: Details about clinical testing may be missing from FDA summaries. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular devices with Class I recalls were infrequently subjected to premarket or postmarket testing, with recalls affecting thousands of patients annually. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Trustworthy and ethical AI-enabled cardiovascular care: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care. METHODS: In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients', caregivers', or healthcare providers' perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design. RESULTS: After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues (n = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity (n = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm (n = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns (n = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy (n = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership (n = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients' interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights. CONCLUSION: This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.

Associations Between Surrogate Markers and Clinical Outcomes for Nononcologic Chronic Disease Treatments.

Importance: Surrogate markers are increasingly used as primary end points in clinical trials supporting drug approvals. Objective: To systematically summarize the evidence from meta-analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and pooled analyses (hereafter, meta-analyses) of clinical trials examining the strength of association between treatment effects measured using surrogate markers and clinical outcomes in nononcologic chronic diseases. Data sources: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table and MEDLINE from inception to March 19, 2023. Study Selection: Three reviewers selected meta-analyses of clinical trials; meta-analyses of observational studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, slopes, effect estimates, or results from meta-regression analyses between surrogate markers and clinical outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, when reported, was classified as high strength (r ≥ 0.85 or R2 ≥ 0.72); primary findings were otherwise summarized. Results: Thirty-seven surrogate markers listed in FDA's table and used as primary end points in clinical trials across 32 unique nononcologic chronic diseases were included. For 22 (59%) surrogate markers (21 chronic diseases), no eligible meta-analysis was identified. For 15 (41%) surrogate markers (14 chronic diseases), at least 1 meta-analysis was identified, 54 in total (median per surrogate marker, 2.5; IQR, 1.3-6.0); among these, median number of trials and patients meta-analyzed was 18.5 (IQR, 12.0-43.0) and 90 056 (IQR, 20 109-170 014), respectively. The 54 meta-analyses reported 109 unique surrogate marker-clinical outcome pairs: 59 (54%) reported at least 1 r or R2, 10 (17%) of which reported at least 1 classified as high strength, whereas 50 (46%) reported slopes, effect estimates, or results of meta-regression analyses only, 26 (52%) of which reported at least 1 statistically significant result. Conclusions and Relevance: Most surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases lacked high-strength evidence of associations with clinical outcomes from published meta-analyses.

Pivotal Trial Demographic Representation and Clinical Development Times for Oncology Therapeutics.

This study evaluates whether FDA-approved novel cancer therapeutics supported by pivotal trials with adequate representation of minoritized groups were associated with slower clinical development times than those with inadequate representation.

Direct oral anticoagulant approvals by four major regulatory agencies: a cross-sectional analysis of premarket and postmarket evidence.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the premarket and postmarket evidence of safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants approved for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients across four major regulatory agencies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: European Medicines Association (EMA), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). PARTICIPANTS: Apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban marketing authorisations. OUTCOME MEASURES: Concordance among regulatory agencies with respect to (1) premarket evidence used to establish efficacy and safety and (2) postmarket safety boxed warnings and postmarketing study requirements. RESULTS: Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were approved by each of the four regulatory agencies; edoxaban was only not approved by TGA. For premarket efficacy evidence, there was concordance across all agencies in terms of phase 3 trials for three (75%) drugs, sample size for three (75%) drugs, primary endpoints for four (100%) drugs, numerical results for three (75%) drugs, agency interpretation of results for four (100%) drugs and number of phase 2 trials for three (75%) drugs. For the premarket safety evidence, there was concordance across all agencies in terms of phase 3 trials for three (75%) drugs, sample size for two (50%) drugs, primary endpoints for four (100%) drugs, numerical results for three (75%) drugs, agency interpretation of results for three (75%) drugs and number of phase 2 trials for zero (0%) drugs. For postmarket safety information, FDA was the only agency that issued boxed warnings (for three (75%) drugs). Additionally, EMA and TGA required postmarketing studies (for four (100%) and two (50%) drugs, respectively), while FDA and Health Canada did not have any postmarketing requirements. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of concordance in the phase 3 trial premarket evidence used to establish efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulant approvals across four major regulatory agencies, but discordance in the phase 2 trial premarket evidence used, as well as in postmarket safety boxed warnings and postmarketing study requirements. These discrepancies highlight opportunities for further harmonisation in the evaluation and regulation of medical products globally.

Premarket Pivotal Trial End Points and Postmarketing Requirements for FDA Breakthrough Therapies.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awards the breakthrough therapy designation to expedite development and review of therapeutics intended to treat serious conditions when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates potential substantial improvement over existing therapies on clinically significant end points. Under the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, the FDA is required to publish and routinely update a list of surrogate markers to provide industry sponsors with indication-specific information about end points that were or may be considered for approval. Therapeutics that are granted breakthrough therapy designation can receive accelerated or traditional approval; however, little is known about those approved through the latter pathway, where postmarketing confirmatory studies are typically not required, regardless of the end point used. Objective: To evaluate the primary end points used in premarket pivotal trials supporting FDA breakthrough therapy-designated approvals and to determine whether postmarketing studies confirming efficacy were required for approvals based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Drugs@FDA database for all original breakthrough therapy-designated approvals from inception to December 31, 2023, in the US. The first designation was approved on November 1, 2013. Data analysis was performed in January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses were used to characterize the breakthrough therapy-designated indication approval pathways, the primary end points of pivotal efficacy trials, and their postmarketing requirements or commitments. Results: From 2013 to 2023, the FDA approved 157 original indications with breakthrough therapy designation. Of these, 52 (33%) were granted accelerated approval and 105 (67%) were granted traditional approval. All accelerated approvals were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points and had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy. Of these 52 indications, 51 (98%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table of surrogate end points for the same indication. Among traditional approvals, 61 (58%) were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points, of which 4 (7%) had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy and 39 (64%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table for the same indication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of original FDA breakthrough therapy-designated approvals from 2013 to 2023, trials supporting these approvals often used surrogate markers as primary end points (even when not approved via accelerated approval) and lacked FDA-required postmarketing studies to verify clinical benefit. These findings suggest that requiring postmarketing studies for breakthrough therapy-designated indications approved based on surrogate markers, regardless of approval pathway, may increase patient and clinician certainty of the expected clinical benefit.

Characterization of accelerated approval status, trial endpoints and results, and recommendations in guidelines for oncology drug treatments from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: cross sectional study.

Objectives: To evaluate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendations for oncology drug treatments that have been granted accelerated approval, and to determine whether recommendations are updated based on the results of confirmatory trials after approval and based on status updates from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Design: Cross sectional study. Setting: US FDA and NCCN guidelines. Population: Oncology therapeutic indications (ie, specific oncological conditions for which the drug is recommended) that have been granted accelerated approval in 2009-18. Main outcome measures: NCCN guideline reporting of accelerated approval status and postapproval confirmatory trials, and guideline recommendation alignment with postapproval confirmatory trial results and FDA status updates. Results: 39 oncology drug treatments were granted accelerated approval for 62 oncological indications. Although all indications were recommended in NCCN guidelines, accelerated approval status was reported for 10 (16%) indications. At least one postapproval confirmatory trial was identified for all 62 indications, 33 (53%) of which confirmed benefit; among these indications, NCCN guidelines maintained the previous recommendation or strengthened the category of evidence for 27 (82%). Postapproval confirmatory trials failed to confirm benefit for 12 (19%) indications; among these indications, NCCN guidelines removed the previous recommendation or weakened the category of evidence for five (42%). NCCN guidelines reflected the FDA's decision to convert 30 (83%) of 36 indications from accelerated to traditional approval, of which 20 (67%) had guideline updates before the FDA's conversion decision. NCCN guidelines reflected the FDA's decision to withdraw seven (58%) of 12 indications from the market, of which four (57%) had guidelines updates before the FDA's withdrawal decision. Conclusions: NCCN guidelines always recommend drug treatments that have been granted accelerated approval for oncological indications, but do not provide information about their accelerated approval status, including surrogate endpoint use and status of postapproval confirmatory trials. NCCN guidelines consistently provide information on postapproval trial results confirming clinical benefit, but not on postapproval trials failing to confirm clinical benefit. NCCN guidelines more frequently update recommendation for indications converted to traditional approval than for those approvals that were withdrawn.

Published research on the human health implications of climate change between 2012 and 2021: cross sectional study.

Objective: To better understand the state of research on the effects of climate change on human health, including exposures, health conditions, populations, areas of the world studied, funding sources, and publication characteristics, with a focus on topics that are relevant for populations at risk. Design: Cross sectional study. Data sources: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences climate change and human health literature portal, a curated bibliographical database of global peer reviewed research and grey literature was searched. The database combines searches of multiple search engines including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and includes added-value expert tagging of climate change exposures and health impacts. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were peer reviewed, original research articles that investigated the health effects of climate change and were published in English from 2012 to 2021. After identification, a 10% random sample was selected to manually perform a detailed characterisation of research topics and publication information. Results: 10 325 original research articles were published between 2012 and 2021, and the number of articles increased by 23% annually. In a random sample of 1014 articles, several gaps were found in research topics that are particularly relevant to populations at risk, such as those in the global south (134 countries established through the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation) (n=444; 43.8%), adults aged 65 years or older (n=195; 19.2%), and on topics related to human conflict and migration (n=25; 2.5%) and food and water quality and security (n=148; 14.6%). Additionally, fewer first authors were from the global south (n=349; 34.4%), which may partly explain why research focusing on these countries is disproportionally less. Conclusions: Although the body of research on the health effects of climate change has grown substantially over the past decade, including those with a focus on the global south, a disproportionate focus continues to be on countries in the global north and less at risk populations. Governments are the largest source of funding for such research, and governments, particularly in the global north, need to re-orient their climate and health research funding to support researchers in the global south and to be more inclusive of issues that are relevant to the global south.

Financial conflicts of interest among US physician authors of 2020 clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and accuracy of industry-related financial conflict of interest (COI) disclosures among US physician guideline authors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Clinical practice guidelines published by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies in 2020. PARTICIPANTS: US physician guideline authors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Financial COI disclosures, both self-reported and determined using Open Payments data. RESULTS: Among 270 US physician authors of 20 clinical practice guidelines, 101 (37.4%) disclosed industry-related financial COIs, whereas 199 (73.7%) were found to have received payments from industry when accounting for payments disclosed through Open Payments. The median payments received by authors during the 3-year period was US$27 451 (IQR, US$1385-US$254 677). Comparing authors' self-disclosures with Open Payments, 72 (26.7%) of the authors accurately disclosed their financial COIs, including 68 (25.2%) accurately disclosing no financial COIs and 4 (1.5%) accurately disclosing a financial COI. In contrast, 101 (37.4%) disclosed no financial COIs and were found to have received payments from industry, 23 (8.5%) disclosed a financial COI but had under-reported payments received from industry, 14 (5.2%) disclosed a financial COI but had over-reported payments received from industry and 60 (22.2%) disclosed a financial COI but were found to have both under-reported and over-reported payments received from industry. We found that inaccurate COI disclosure was more frequent among professors compared with non-professors (81.9% vs 63.5%; p<0.001) and among males compared with females (77.7% vs 64.8%; p=0.02). The accuracy of disclosures also varied among medical professional societies (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Financial relationships with industry are common among US physician authors of clinical practice guidelines and are often not accurately disclosed. To ensure high-quality guidelines and unbiased recommendations, more effort is needed to minimise existing COIs and improve disclosure accuracy among panel members.

Characterization of US Food and Drug Administration Class I Recalls from 2018 to 2022 for Moderate- and High-Risk Medical Devices: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Medical device recalls are initiated in response to safety concerns. Class I (highest severity) recalls imply a reasonable likelihood of serious adverse events or death associated with device use. Recalled devices must be identified, assessed, and corrected or removed, upon which a recall can be terminated. Objective: To characterize Class I medical device recalls and corresponding recalled devices. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of Class I recalls posted on the Food and Drug Administration's annual log from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022 for moderate-risk and high-risk medical devices. Devices were categorized by therapeutic use, need for implantation, and life-sustaining designation; recalls were categorized by reason, status, and time elapsed. Results: There were 189 unique Class I medical device recalls, including 151 (79.9%) for moderate-risk and 34 (18.0%) for high-risk devices. Sixty-five (34.4%) recalls were for cardiovascular devices, 36 (19.0%) for implanted devices, and 37 (19.6%) for life-sustaining devices. The median number of device units recalled in the US per recall notice was 4620 (interquartile range [IQR], 578-42,591), with 11 (5.8%) recalls associated with more than 1 million device units. Overall, 125 (66.1%) devices had multiple recalls, with a median of 4 (IQR, 3-11) recalls issued per recalled device. As of September 15, 2022, 50 (26.5%) recalls were terminated, with a median of 24 (IQR, 17.3-30.8) months elapsed between recall initiation and termination. Recalls were terminated more commonly among devices recalled once compared to those recalled multiple times (36.2% vs 19.2%; p=0.02) and for recalls that recommended discontinuing further use of affected devices compared to those that recommended device assessment and/or education of affected population (31.8% vs 18.2%; p=0.04). Conclusion: High-severity medical device recalls are common and affect millions of device units annually in the US. Recall termination takes a significant amount of time, putting patients at risk for serious safety concerns.

eHealth technologies assisting in identifying potential adverse interactions with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or standalone CAM adverse events or side effects: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: While there are several existing eHealth technologies for drug-drug interactions and stand-alone drug adverse effects, it appears that considerably less attention is focussed on that of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite poor knowledge of their potential interactions and side effects, many patients use CAM. This justifies the need to identify what eHealth technologies are assisting in identifying potential 1) adverse drug interactions with CAM, 2) adverse CAM-CAM interactions or 3) standalone CAM adverse events or side effects. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify eHealth technologies assisting in identifying potential adverse interactions with CAM or standalone CAM adverse events or side effects, following Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and AMED databases and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health website were systematically searched. Eligible articles had to have assessed or referenced an eHealth technology assisting in identifying potential one or more of the three aforementioned items. We placed no eligibility restrictions on type of eHealth technology. RESULTS: Searches identified 3467 items, of which 2763 were unique, and 2674 titles and abstracts were eliminated, leaving 89 full-text articles to be considered. Of those, 48 were not eligible, leaving a total of 41 articles eligible for review. From these 41 articles, 69 unique eHealth technologies meeting our eligibility criteria were identified. Themes which emerged from our analysis included the following: the lack of recent reviews of CAM-related healthcare information; a large number of databases; and the presence of government adverse drug/event surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The present scoping review is the first, to our knowledge, to provide a descriptive map of the literature and eHealth technologies relating to our research question. We highlight that while an ample number of resources are available to healthcare providers, researchers, and patients, we caution that the quality and update frequency for many of these resources vary widely, and until formally assessed, remain unknown. We identify that a need exists to conduct an updated and systematically-searched review of CAM-related healthcare or research resources, as well as develop guidance documents associated with the development and evaluation of CAM-related eHealth technologies.

Premarket Evidence and Postmarketing Requirements for Real-Time Oncology Review Indication Approvals.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the use of the US Food and Drug Administration's Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) program in confirming the effectiveness of cancer drugs.

Use of Expedited Regulatory Programs and Clinical Development Times for FDA-Approved Novel Therapeutics.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the duration between application to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approval for new drugs and biologics in the US from 2015 to 2022.

Availability of Unique Device Identifiers for Class I Medical Device Recalls From 2018 to 2022.

This cross-sectional study describes the inclusion of unique device identifier in recall notices for moderate- and high-risk medical devices in the US.