When is a cost-effectiveness claim valid? How much should the FDA care? (1/211)

Federal law requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the promotional claims of prescription drugs and certain devices. Standards of evidence for claims of safety and therapeutic efficacy are rigorous because inappropriate product use may place human life at risk. However, equally demanding criteria for claims of cost-effectiveness of marketed technologies seem to be unnecessary because the consequence of error is principally a bad buy rather than patient harm. Concern exists about the validity of cost-effectiveness studies, the potential for bias, standards for the conduct of cost-effectiveness research, and the needs of managed care. The FDA should moderate its role in regulating cost-effectiveness claims of drugs and devices. This would foster information flow to healthcare providers and insurers and protect the FDA concern regarding false or misleading claims of effectiveness. Although the issues are applicable to both devices and drugs, we draw mainly from the field of pharmacoeconomics because this is where most of the policy has developed.  (+info)

Technology assessment of medical devices at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2/211)

We reviewed the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory process for medical devices and described the issues that arise in assessing device safety and effectiveness during the postmarket period. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), an organization within the Food and Drug Administration, has the legal authority and responsibility for ensuring that medical devices marketed in the United States are both reasonably safe and effective for their intended use. This is an enormous challenge given the diversity of medical devices and the large number of different types of devices on the market. Many scientific and regulatory activities are necessary to ensure device safety and effectiveness, including technology assessment, albeit in a manner quite different from that of conventional technology assessment. The basic approach taken at the CDRH to ensure device safety and effectiveness is to develop an understanding of the way in which a medical device works and how it will perform in clinical situations.  (+info)

The limited state of technology assessment for medical devices: facing the issues. (3/211)

Medical devices are an integral part of clinical practice and account for a substantial proportion of the national health budget. Clinical testing and regulation of medical devices, however, is vastly different from and inferior to the testing and regulation of drugs. As managed care organizations begin to exert controls on device use, providers are being caught between the policies of their organizations and the demands of device manufacturers and patients, who want wider access to devices. We outline several reasons for the poor state of medical device evaluations and the dangers of using devices without adequate information, and include the recently developed device assessment and reporting guidelines created by the Task Force on Technology Assessment of Medical Devices.  (+info)

The Food and Drug Administration and atrial defibrillation devices. (4/211)

CONTEXT: Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia. It leads to significant morbidity and mortality, primarily from the increased incidence of stroke. The implantable atrial defibrillator, a new therapeutic option for the management of atrial fibrillation, is currently undergoing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutiny for approval to market in the United States. DATA SOURCES: A review of the basic epidemiology of atrial fibrillation, as well as the current status of accepted treatment options in light of the development of the implantable atrial defibrillator, was conducted. A literature search using the terms atrial fibrillation, implantable defibrillator, Food and Drug Administration, medical devices, and medical device regulatory law was conducted using the MEDLINE and Current Contents databases. RESULTS: Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment of atrial fibrillation. Despite the lack of definitive studies showing overall benefit associated with maintaining sinus rhythm in patients in atrial fibrillation, the implantable atrial defibrillator may soon reach the general market. We examine the FDA process for the evaluation of this new medical device and discuss implications for the patient, physician, industry, and health insurers. CONCLUSIONS: Current FDA approval processes for new devices are a compromise between (a) the needs for expediency and encouraging innovation by the medical device industry and (b) the need to ensure that new devices will contribute to improved patient outcomes. We suggest alternative FDA-approval processes that address these issues.  (+info)

Hematology and pathology devices; reclassification; restricted devices; OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule. (5/211)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying over-the-counter (OTC) test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing from class III (premarket approval) into class I (general controls) and exempting them from premarket notification (510(k)) and current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements. FDA is also designating OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing as restricted devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and establishing restrictions intended to assure consumers that: The underlying laboratory test(s) are accurate and reliable; the laboratory performing the test(s) has adequate expertise and competency; and the product has adequate labeling and methods of communicating test results to consumers. Finally, FDA is adding a conforming amendment to the existing classification regulation for specimen transport and storage containers to clarify that it does not apply to specimen transport and storage containers that are part of an OTC test sample collection system for the purpose of testing for the presence of drugs of abuse or their metabolites in a laboratory.  (+info)

Cardiovascular, orthopedic, and physical medicine diagnostic devices; reclassification of cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment, goniometer device, and electrode cable devices. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule. (6/211)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying from class I into class II the cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment device that involves an electrical connection to the patient, the goniometer device, and the electrode cable. FDA is also exempting these devices from the premarket notification requirements. FDA is reclassifying these devices on its own initiative based on new information. FDA is taking this action to establish sufficient regulatory controls that will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices.  (+info)

Medical devices; effective date of requirement for premarket approval for three preamendment class III devices. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule. (7/211)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final rule to retain three class III preamendment devices in class III and to require the filing of a premarket approval application (PMA) or a notice of completion of a product development protocol (PDP) for the following devices: The lung water monitor, the powered vaginal muscle stimulator, and the stair-climbing wheelchair. The agency has summarized its findings regarding the degree of risk of illness or injury designed to be eliminated or reduced by requiring the devices to meet the statute's approval requirements and the benefits to the public from the use of the devices.  (+info)

Medical devices; reclassification and codification of the nonabsorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene surgical suture. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule. (8/211)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it has issued an order in the form of a letter to W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc., reclassifying the nonabsorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) surgical suture intended for use in soft tissue approximation and ligation, including cardiovascular surgery, from class III (premarket approval) to class II (special controls). Accordingly, the order is being codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  (+info)