Tag Archives: medical devices

How the FDA Handles Recalls of Life-Saving Implants Could Put People at Risk, Patients Say

Nicole Carr, WSBTV; May 20, 2019



Jonesboro resident Geraldine Robinson is one of millions of Americans who use an implanted medical device to improve, and possibly extend her life.

In 2013 she was implanted with a defibrillator to help with her congestive heart failure. She went to the doctor for checkups every six months. Robinson thought her device would keep her healthy for years. But last month the hospital called to tell her that device’s battery was failing. Robinson rushed to the emergency room.

“I was scared they wasn’t going to get to me in time,” Geraldine said.

The next day doctors replaced her device. The reason for the surgery noted on her patient information card was, recall.

Channel 2’s Nicole Carr searched the FDA recall database and found Robinson’s device had been recalled two years earlier. The manufacturer’s suggested course of action was to monitor the device.

While Robinson said she had no idea her device was recalled, her hospital said she was mailed a letter to notify her. Robinson said she never got that letter.

Diana Zuckerman, president of The National Center for Health Research, said she wasn’t surprised that Robinson’s recalled device remained implanted for years.

“This is the doctor having to say to the patient, ‘This implant in your body has been recalled but we don’t think you should have it removed unless you’re having obvious problems with it,” Zuckerman said.

Zuckerman was also said Robinson is most likely not alone in her confusion, and often patients don’t learn their device is recalled.

“Perhaps the patient has moved and the doctor or even the hospital doesn’t know where that patient is anymore,” Zuckerman said.

Linda Radach, an implant recipient herself, said she believes the recall process needs an overhaul.

“The FDA is very, very slow to use their authority to issue a recall instead requiring warning letters and requiring post market surveillance studies. Most of which are never completed,” Radach said.

According the FDA website they hardly every issue a recall, instead trusting manufacturers to self-report. An FDA spokeswoman said recalls are not the only way they get dangerous products off the market.

There are several patient resources available for medical device recipients, including questions to ask your doctor about the approval process.

Radach said a 2006 metal on metal hip replacement failed leaving dangerous cobalt chromium debris in her system.

“I’ve now had six total hip replacements,” Radach said. She said her issues were never reported to the FDA by her doctors and her device was never recalled. She did her own research and found her device had been approved for market three years after it was put in her body. “That alarmed me enough to realize this was much, much bigger than just me.”

Radach told Channel 2 Action News many of the parts that made up her implant were cleared through the 510k process which rarely requires clinical trials on human patients. The process has been in place since 1976.

Zuckerman said the 501K process it’s not enough.

“All those companies have to do is prove that their new device is substantially equivalent to a device that’s already on the market,” Zuckerman said.

In 2011 Zuckerman co-authored a report that found from 2005 until 2009, 113 recalls were class one. Only 21 of those recalls went through clinical trials. She said things haven’t improved.

“Instead of saying ‘let’s be more stringent and require clinical trials for more implants,’ they’re doing exactly the opposite,” Zuckerman said. […]

See the original story here.

NCHR Comment on FDA’s 510(k) Third Party Review Program Draft Guidance

National Center for Health Research: December 13, 2018


Comment of the National Center for Health Research Regarding the
510(k) Third Party Review Program:
Draft Guidance for Industry, FDA Staff, and Third Party Review Organizations.
OMB Control Number 0910-0375

The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) is a non-profit organization which conducts original research to better inform policy makers, health professionals, and patients.   NCHR accepts no funding from any entity which manufactures or distributes medical products.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft guidance.  We note that this draft guidance applies to low-to-medium risk medical devices, which concerns us because many Class II devices are permanent implants that have the potential to cause permanent harm to patients.  In fact, our research indicates that even Class I devices have been subjected to high-risk recalls by the FDA due to the potential for causing death or permanent harm.1 2 3

We have several serious concerns about the draft guidance.  First, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) are accountable for the efficacy and safety of their medical devices.  FDA standards require that devices manufactured by OEM’s comply with relevant regulatory standards.  OEMs are required to track, monitor, and report product issues to FDA.  Overseeing the OEMs and their reporting are FDA’s responsibility to ensure patient safety.

Second, in the past FDA has had the opportunity to review the work of any third party reviewer, and reject it if deemed inadequate or shoddy.  In fact, the agency has often found problems with the third party reviews.  The proposed guidance would sharply reduce the agency’s oversight of third party reviews, which will clearly compromise safety.  Even if certified as qualified, third party review companies have an inherent conflict of interest: If their standards are too high, no device company will hire them and they will go out of business.  The system is similar to the EU regulation of medical devices, which has resulted in very harmful decisions, such as the clearance of the PIP breast implants that were found to use non-medical grade silicone.4  In addition, investigative reporters recently obtained CE clearance for a “surgical” mesh that was made out of a plastic mesh bag used for oranges.

Transparency is also a crucial factor.  Currently, third party review companies are not required to clearly label an OEM device indicating that a critical repair has been completed by someone other than the OEM.  Once that repair is made, the device is no longer the same device that was approved or cleared by FDA.  It is important that this chain of accountability is not broken or interrupted.

While we understand the desire of FDA officials to reduce medical device review times and reduce the burden on FDA staff and industry, the 510(k) program already is a quick way to get devices to market and the device industry has clearly benefitted from it.  The 510(k) pathway has been widely criticized by the Institute of Medicine, physicians, patients, and the media for its lack of clinical trials and lack of scientific evidence.5  Despite its weaknesses, the 510(k) pathway is considered superior to the EU regulatory system, however.  By reducing the “burden” for FDA staff and industry, the proposed guidance increases the burden on patients and doctors to figure out which devices are safe and which are not.  This would clearly put U.S. patients at greater risk.

FDA has not demonstrated that its proposed changes to the third party review pathway of Class I and Class II devices will benefit patients.  By definition, 510(k) devices only rarely are substantially superior to recent predicates.  Speeding up the process of clearance is not demonstrated to benefit patients.  Moreover, with registries, NEST, and other planned efforts to improve post-market surveillance still far from effectively implemented, any loosening of 510(k) regulations is very premature.

Finally, we note that Commissioner Gottlieb responded to recent media criticism of CDRH regulations by promising improvements to the 510(k) pathway to ensure patient safety.  The third party review program clearly moves in the opposite direction, reducing patient safety, rather than protecting patients from potentially harmful devices.   We strongly oppose it for that reason.

 

References

  1. Zuckerman, D.M., Brown, P, and Nissen, S.E.  (2011) Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process, Archives of Internal Medicine, 117, 1006-11.
  2. Zuckerman D.M., Brown P., Nissen S.E. (2011). In Reply, Archives of Internal Medicine, 171(11), 1045.
  3. Zuckerman D.M., Brown P., Nissen S.E. (2011). In Reply, Archives of Internal Medicine, 171(21), 1963.
  4. Zuckerman, D., Booker, N, and Nagda, S. (2012) Public Health Implications of Difference in US and European Union Regulatory Policies for Breast Implants, Reproductive Health Matters, 20 (40),102-111.
  5. Zuckerman D.M., Brown P. & Das A. (2014) Lack of Publicly Available Scientific Evidence on the Safety and Effectiveness of Implanted Medical Devices,  JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(11): 1781-1787.