US Food and Drug Administration Clearance of Moderate-Risk Otolaryngologic Devices via the 510(k) Process,1997-2016

Abstract

Objective

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clears moderate-risk devices via the 510(k) process based on substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices; evidence of safety and effectiveness is not required. We characterized the premarket evidence supporting FDA clearance of otolaryngologic devices.

Study Design

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

Publicly available FDA documents.

Subjects and Methods

Recently cleared (1997-2016) moderate-risk otolaryngologic devices were categorized by type (diagnostic/therapeutic), subspecialty, implantable designation (yes/no), and recall history (yes/no). Supporting evidence was categorized by type (clinical/nonclinical/none; nonclinical and clinical mutually inclusive) and public availability of nonclinical and clinical performance data (available/not provided/not applicable).

Results

Between 1997 and 2016, the FDA cleared 377 moderate-risk otolaryngologic devices. The majority were therapeutic (n = 240/377 [63.7%]) and otologic (n = 311/377 [82.5%]); roughly one-third (n = 121/377 [32.1%]) were implantable. Few (n = 10/377 [2.7%]) devices were subject to recall. FDA documents summarizing premarket evidence were accessible for two-thirds (n = 247/377 [65.5%]) of devices. Among these devices, one-quarter (n = 66/247 [26.7%]) were supported by clinical evidence. The majority (n = 177/247 [71.7%]) were supported by nonclinical evidence, although nearly one-quarter (n = 58/247 [23.5%]) were cleared without supporting evidence. Therapeutic devices were more often cleared without supporting evidence (therapeutic: n = 53/170 [31.2%]; diagnostic: n = 5/77 [6.5%]; P < .0001). Nonclinical and clinical performance data were rarely available (nonclinical: n = 49/247 [19.8%]; clinical: n = 32/247 [13.0%]) within public summaries.

Conclusion

The FDA cleared most moderate-risk otolaryngologic devices for marketing via the 510(k) process without clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness. Otolaryngologists should be aware of limitations in premarket evidence when considering the adoption of new devices into clinical practice.

Keywords

otolaryngology FDA device 510(k)otology laryngology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rathi

Wang

Ross

Downing

Kesselheim

Gray

. Clinical evidence supporting US Food and Drug Administration premarket approval of high-risk otolaryngologic devices, 2000-2014. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156:285-288.

Institute of Medicine. Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years. 2011:85. https://www.nap.edu/read/13150/chapter/6. Accessed December 27, 2016.

US Food and Drug Administration. Premarket approval. July 2016. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/howtomarketyourdevice/premarketsubmissions/premarketapprovalpma/. Accessed April 17, 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. FDA basics: what is the difference between FDA-listed, 510(k) exempt, cleared and approved medical devices? December 2015. https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm194468.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory controls. June 2014. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/ucm2005378.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

US Food and Drug Administration. The 510(k) program: evaluating substantial equivalence in premarket notifications. July 2014. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM284443.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2017.

Challoner

Vodra

. Medical devices and health—creating a new regulatory framework for moderate-risk devices. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:977-979.

Ardaugh

Graves

Redberg

. The 510(k) ancestry of a metal-on-metal hip implant. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:97-100.

Jacoby

Subak

Waetjen

. The FDA and the vaginal mesh controversy—further impetus to change the 510(k) pathway for medical device approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:277-278.

10.

Zuckerman

Brown

Das

. Lack of publicly available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of implanted medical devices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1781-1787.

11.

Zuckerman

Brown

Nissen

. Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1006-1011.

12.

US Food and Drug Administration. FDA to seek public comment on IOM recommendations: agency continues to improve device review process. July 2011. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm265908.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

13.

Kesselheim

Woloshin

Eddings

Franklin

Ross

Schwartz

. Physicians’ knowledge about FDA approval standards and perceptions of the “breakthrough therapy” designation. JAMA. 2016;315:1516-1518.

14.

US Food and Drug Administration. Classify your medical device. July 2014. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/. Accessed April 17, 2017.

15.

US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) premarket notification database. January 2017. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

16.

US Food and Drug Administration. Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel. February 2017. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/EarNoseandThroatDevicesPanel/default.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

17.

US Food and Drug Administration. The new 510(k) paradigm—alternate approaches to demonstrating substantial equivalence in premarket notifications. March 1998. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080187.htm#new. Accessed April 17, 2017.

18.

US Congress. Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990. November 1990. https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/3095/text. Accessed April 17, 2017.

19.

US Food and Drug Administration. Product Classification Database. January 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/classification.cfm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

20.

US Food and Drug Administration. Medical Device Recalls Database. January 2017. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

21.

Rathi

Krumholz

Masoudi

Ross

. Characteristics of clinical studies conducted over the total product life cycle of high-risk therapeutic medical devices receiving FDA premarket approval in 2010 and 2011. JAMA. 2015;314:604-612.

22.

US Food and Drug Administration. Recalls, market withdrawals, & safety alerts. June 2009. https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm165546.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

23.

Rathi

Krumholz

Ross

. Commentary: diagnostic devices in clinical trials have high stakes for patient care. BMJ. 2016;354:i5197.

24.

Phillips

. Sufficiency of information in 510(k) summaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:863-864.

25.

Day

Park

Rozenshteyn

Owusu-Sarpong

Gonzalez

. Analysis of FDA-approved orthopaedic devices and their recalls. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:517-524.

26.

Ghobadi

Hayman

. Overview of class I device recalls in diagnostic radiology, 2002-2015. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:638-643.

27.

Lenzer

Brownlee

. Why the FDA can’t protect the public. BMJ. 2010;341:c4753.

28.

Shuren

Califf

. Need for a national evaluation system for health technology. JAMA. 2016;316:1153-1154.

29.

Hines

Lurie

Wolfe

. Left to their own devices: breakdowns in United States medical device premarket review. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000280.

30.

US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) premarket notification for Relieva sinus balloon dilation catheter. April 2005. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf4/K043527.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2017.

31.

Faris

Shuren

. An FDA viewpoint on unique considerations for medical-device clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1350-1357.

32.

Rathi

Kesselheim

Ross

. The US Food and Drug Administration 515 program initiative: addressing the evidence gap for widely used, high-risk cardiovascular devices? JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1:117-118.

33.

US Food and Drug Administration. 522 Postmarket surveillance studies—frequently asked questions. February 2017. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/PostmarketRequirements/PostmarketSurveillance/ucm134497.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

34.

US Government Accountability Office. FDA ordered postmarket studies to better understand safety issues, and many studies are ongoing. September 2015. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672860.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2017.

35.

US Food and Drug Administration. 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database. April 2017. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pss.cfm?s=t. Accessed April 17, 2017.

36.

Rising

Reynolds

Sedrakyan

. Delays and difficulties in assessing metal-on-metal hip implants. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:e1.

37.

Rajan

Kramer

Kesselheim

. Medical device postapproval safety monitoring: where does the United States stand? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:124-131.

38.

US Food and Drug Administration. Compliance dates for UDI requirements. September 2016. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/UniqueDeviceIdentification/CompliancedatesforUDIRequirements/default.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

39.

US Food and Drug Administration. FDA’s sentinel initiative. December 2016. https://www.fda.gov/Safety/FDAsSentinelInitiative/ucm2007250.htm. Accessed April 17, 2017.

40.

Rising

Moscovitch

. The Food and Drug Administration’s unique device identification system: better postmarket data on the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1719-1720.

41.

American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Regent ENT Clinical Data Registry. 2017. http://www.entnet.org/content/regent-ent-clinical-data-registry. Accessed April 17, 2017.

42.

Ohio Department of Medicaid. Episodes. 2017. http://www.medicaid.ohio.gov/PROVIDERS/PaymentInnovation/Episodes.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2017.

43.

Tennessee Division of Health Care Finance & Administration. Episodes by wave. 2017. https://www.tn.gov/hcfa/article/episodes-by-wave. Accessed April 17, 2017.

44.

State of Arkansas. Health care payment improvement initiative—episodes of care. 2012. http://www.paymentinitiative.org/episodesofcare/pages/default.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2017.

45.

Navathe

Troxel

Liao

et al . Cost of joint replacement using bundled payment models. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:214-222.

46.

Dhruva

Krumholz

. Championing effectiveness before cost-effectiveness. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4:376-379.

47.

Eichler

H-G

Hurts

Broich

Rasi

. Drug regulation and pricing—can regulators influence affordability? N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1807-1809.

48.

Cuda

Murri

Mochi

Solenghi

Tinelli

. Microdrill, CO2-laser, and piezoelectric stapedotomy: a comparative study. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:1111-1115.

49.

US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) Premarket notification for intuitive surgical endoscopic instrument control systems, models IS1200, IS2000, and IS 3000. December 2009. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K090993. Accessed April 17, 2017.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB