Approval-adjusted recall rates of high-risk medical devices from 2002-2016 across food and drug administration device categories.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q3 LAW Issues in Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2019-01-01
Comeron W Ghobadi, Timothy M Janetos, Shelun Tsai, Leah Welty, Jessica R Walter, Shuai Xu
{"title":"Approval-adjusted recall rates of high-risk medical devices from 2002-2016 across food and drug administration device categories.","authors":"Comeron W Ghobadi,&nbsp;Timothy M Janetos,&nbsp;Shelun Tsai,&nbsp;Leah Welty,&nbsp;Jessica R Walter,&nbsp;Shuai Xu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Between 2002 and 2016, 806 million medical devices were recalled. When approving a device, the FDA employs advisory boards organized by medical specialty (e.g. cardiovascular) to make approval recommendations. Previous work has demonstrated high numbers of recalled orthopedic and cardiovascular devices; however, no prior studies have controlled for the number of approvals by advisory board. The purpose of this study is to identify device fields at higher risk for safety problems. This study compares specialty-specific, approval-adjusted recall rates of high-risk medical devices from 2002 to 2016 by utilizing publicly available FDA data on recalls and approvals. Devices approved under general hospital (113), anesthesiology (98), and cardiovascular (98) advisory boards constituted 71% of all class I recalls. For devices approved via the more rigorous pre-market approval pathway, those under the purview of the general hospital (0.25 recalls/approval, 95% CI 0.15 - 0.41) advisory board had a significantly higher rate than average (p<0.05). For 510(k) cleared devices, microbiology (6.0 recalls/clearance, 95% CI 3.4 - 10.6), anesthesiology (0.04 recalls/clearance, 95% CI 0.03 - 0.04), general hospital (0.02 recalls/clearance, 95% CI 0.02 - 0.02), and cardiovascular (0.010 recalls/ clearance, 0.009 to 0.015) advisory boards had significantly higher recall rates than average (p<0.05). Future regulatory resources should be directed towards device areas and approval pathways that pose a higher risk for safety problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":48665,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Law & Medicine","volume":"34 1","pages":"77-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Between 2002 and 2016, 806 million medical devices were recalled. When approving a device, the FDA employs advisory boards organized by medical specialty (e.g. cardiovascular) to make approval recommendations. Previous work has demonstrated high numbers of recalled orthopedic and cardiovascular devices; however, no prior studies have controlled for the number of approvals by advisory board. The purpose of this study is to identify device fields at higher risk for safety problems. This study compares specialty-specific, approval-adjusted recall rates of high-risk medical devices from 2002 to 2016 by utilizing publicly available FDA data on recalls and approvals. Devices approved under general hospital (113), anesthesiology (98), and cardiovascular (98) advisory boards constituted 71% of all class I recalls. For devices approved via the more rigorous pre-market approval pathway, those under the purview of the general hospital (0.25 recalls/approval, 95% CI 0.15 - 0.41) advisory board had a significantly higher rate than average (p<0.05). For 510(k) cleared devices, microbiology (6.0 recalls/clearance, 95% CI 3.4 - 10.6), anesthesiology (0.04 recalls/clearance, 95% CI 0.03 - 0.04), general hospital (0.02 recalls/clearance, 95% CI 0.02 - 0.02), and cardiovascular (0.010 recalls/ clearance, 0.009 to 0.015) advisory boards had significantly higher recall rates than average (p<0.05). Future regulatory resources should be directed towards device areas and approval pathways that pose a higher risk for safety problems.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2002-2016年食品药品监督管理器械类别中高风险医疗器械的批准调整召回率。
2002年至2016年,共有8.06亿件医疗器械被召回。当批准一种设备时,FDA采用由医学专业(例如心血管)组织的咨询委员会来提出批准建议。先前的研究表明,大量的骨科和心血管器械被召回;但是,以前没有研究控制咨询委员会批准的数量。本研究的目的是确定安全问题风险较高的设备领域。本研究利用公开的FDA召回和批准数据,比较了2002年至2016年高风险医疗器械的特定专业、经批准调整的召回率。综合医院(113)、麻醉科(98)和心血管科(98)顾问委员会批准的器械占所有I类召回的71%。对于通过更严格的上市前审批途径批准的器械,那些在综合医院(0.25召回/批准,95% CI 0.15 - 0.41)顾问委员会范围内的器械的发生率显著高于平均水平(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Law & Medicine
Issues in Law & Medicine Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Law & Medicine is a peer reviewed professional journal published semiannually. Founded in 1985, ILM is co-sponsored by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, Inc. and the Watson Bowes Research Institute. Issues is devoted to providing technical and informational assistance to attorneys, health care professionals, educators and administrators on legal, medical, and ethical issues arising from health care decisions. Its subscribers include law libraries, medical libraries, university libraries, court libraries, attorneys, physicians, university professors and other scholars, primarily in the U.S. and Canada, but also in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
期刊最新文献
A Reanalysis of Mental Disorders Risk Following First-Trimester Abortions in Denmark. In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine. International Standards and Features of Financing in the Field of Health Care and Provision of Medical Services. Misleading Statements About "Life of the Mother" Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction. State Regulation of Ensuring the Quality Medical Care During Martial Law in Ukraine: Lessons for the International Community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1