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, Timothy M Janetos, Shelun Tsai, Leah Welty, Jessica R Walter, 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.
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
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.