Strength of Study Evidence Examined by the FDA in Premarket Approval of Cardiovascular Devices

被引:147
作者
Dhruva, Sanket S.
Bero, Lisa A. [2 ,3 ]
Redberg, Rita F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med, Div Cardiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Pharm, Dept Clin Pharm, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Med, Inst Hlth Policy Studies, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2009年 / 302卷 / 24期
关键词
HEALTH-CARE COSTS; MEDICAL DEVICES; TRIALS; SAFETY;
D O I
10.1001/jama.2009.1899
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context Medical devices are common in clinical practice and have important effects on morbidity and mortality, yet there has not been a systematic examination of evidence used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for device approval. Objectives To study premarket approval (PMA)-the most stringent FDA review process-of cardiovascular devices and to characterize the type and strength of evidence on which it is based. Data Sources and Study Selection Systematic review of 123 summaries of safety and effectiveness data for 78 PMAs for high-risk cardiovascular devices that received PMA between January 2000 and December 2007. Data Extraction Examination of the methodological characteristics considered essential to minimize confounding and bias, as well as the primary end points of the 123 studies supporting the PMAs. Results Thirty-three of 123 studies (27%) used to support recent FDA approval of cardiovascular devices were randomized and 17 of 123 (14%) were blinded. Fifty-one of 78 PMAs (65%) were based on a single study. One hundred eleven of 213 primary end points (52%) were compared with controls and 34 of 111 controls (31%) were retrospective. One hundred eighty-seven of 213 primary end points (88%) were surrogate measures and 122 of 157 (78%) had a discrepancy between the number of patients enrolled in the study and the number analyzed. Conclusion Premarket approval of cardiovascular devices by the FDA is often based on studies that lack adequate strength and may be prone to bias. JAMA. 2009;302(24):2679-2685 www.jama.com
引用
收藏
页码:2679 / 2685
页数:7
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Does Comparative Effectiveness Have a Comparative Edge? [J].
Alexander, G. Caleb ;
Stafford, Randall S. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 301 (23) :2488-2490
[2]  
[Anonymous], TECHN CHANG GROWTH H
[3]  
[Anonymous], National Health Expenditure Projections 2011 - 2021
[4]   DTCA for PTCA - Crossing the line in consumer health education? [J].
Boden, William E. ;
Diamond, George A. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2008, 358 (21) :2197-2200
[5]   The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009. [J].
Curfman, Gregory D. ;
Morrissey, Stephen ;
Drazen, Jeffrey M. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (15) :1550-1551
[6]   Clinical Effectiveness of Coronary Stents in Elderly Persons Results From 262,700 Medicare Patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry [J].
Douglas, Pamela S. ;
Brennan, J. Matthew ;
Anstrom, Kevin J. ;
Sedrakyan, Art ;
Eisenstein, Eric L. ;
Haque, Ghazala ;
Dai, David ;
Kong, David F. ;
Hammill, Bradley ;
Curtis, Lesley ;
Matchar, David ;
Brindis, Ralph ;
Peterson, Eric D. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2009, 53 (18) :1629-1641
[7]   The perfect storm of overutilization [J].
Emanuel, Ezekiel J. ;
Fuchs, Victor R. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (23) :2789-2791
[8]   Ensuring safe and effective medical devices [J].
Feigal, DW ;
Gardner, SN ;
McClellan, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2003, 348 (03) :191-192
[9]   Who is responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices? The role of independent technology assessment [J].
Feldmon, Mitchell D. ;
Petersen, Amy J. ;
Korliner, Leoh S. ;
Tice, Jeffrey A. .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 23 (Suppl 1) :57-63
[10]   Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? [J].
Fleming, TR ;
DeMets, DL .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1996, 125 (07) :605-613