Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration

Harib H. Ezaldein, Jeffrey Scott, Emily S. Yin, Alessandra Ventura, Nicholaas P. Deruyter, David J. Leffell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration approves Class III medical devices via the premarket approval pathway, often requiring clinical data on safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can submit incremental device changes via supplemental applications, which are not subjected to such vetting measures and can cause understudied changes that lead to drift from a device's original design. OBJECTIVES To characterize the postapproval changes to Class III dermatologic devices and to evaluate inconsistencies in the use of the premarket approval pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This studywas a cross-sectional retrospective cohort analysis of a public US Food and Drug Administration database for premarket approval of devices. Included were dermatologic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2016, through the premarket pathway for device approval. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Original deviceswere identified, and their supplements were characterized chronologically, by review track, and by modification category. RESULTS The 27 dermatologic devices studied consisted of 14 injectables, 11 photodynamic therapies, a dermal replacement matrix, and a diagnostic imaging instrument. Supplemental applications are increasingly used: the data-requiring panel-track pathway was the least common approach (2.8%[16 of 562 supplements]), while the 30-day track, which does not require clinical data, was most frequently used (42.5%[239 of 562 supplements]). Four devices (14.8%) underwent low-risk recalls (Class II or Class III), and 10 devices (37.0%) were voluntarily withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE As manufacturers make increasing use of supplemental applications, minor device changesmay occur without supporting clinical data, which could pose a safety risk to patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)273-280
Number of pages8
JournalJAMA Dermatology
Volume154
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Device Approval
United States Food and Drug Administration
Equipment and Supplies
Pharmaceutical Databases
Equipment Design
Safety
Photochemotherapy
Diagnostic Imaging
Cohort Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology

Cite this

Ezaldein, H. H., Scott, J., Yin, E. S., Ventura, A., Deruyter, N. P., & Leffell, D. J. (2018). Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration. JAMA Dermatology, 154(3), 273-280. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5757

Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration. / Ezaldein, Harib H.; Scott, Jeffrey; Yin, Emily S.; Ventura, Alessandra; Deruyter, Nicholaas P.; Leffell, David J.

In: JAMA Dermatology, Vol. 154, No. 3, 01.03.2018, p. 273-280.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ezaldein, HH, Scott, J, Yin, ES, Ventura, A, Deruyter, NP & Leffell, DJ 2018, 'Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration', JAMA Dermatology, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 273-280. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5757
Ezaldein, Harib H. ; Scott, Jeffrey ; Yin, Emily S. ; Ventura, Alessandra ; Deruyter, Nicholaas P. ; Leffell, David J. / Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration. In: JAMA Dermatology. 2018 ; Vol. 154, No. 3. pp. 273-280.
@article{3ed16a2eaaad482e9573ef7c4ddf0475,
title = "Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration approves Class III medical devices via the premarket approval pathway, often requiring clinical data on safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can submit incremental device changes via supplemental applications, which are not subjected to such vetting measures and can cause understudied changes that lead to drift from a device's original design. OBJECTIVES To characterize the postapproval changes to Class III dermatologic devices and to evaluate inconsistencies in the use of the premarket approval pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This studywas a cross-sectional retrospective cohort analysis of a public US Food and Drug Administration database for premarket approval of devices. Included were dermatologic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2016, through the premarket pathway for device approval. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Original deviceswere identified, and their supplements were characterized chronologically, by review track, and by modification category. RESULTS The 27 dermatologic devices studied consisted of 14 injectables, 11 photodynamic therapies, a dermal replacement matrix, and a diagnostic imaging instrument. Supplemental applications are increasingly used: the data-requiring panel-track pathway was the least common approach (2.8{\%}[16 of 562 supplements]), while the 30-day track, which does not require clinical data, was most frequently used (42.5{\%}[239 of 562 supplements]). Four devices (14.8{\%}) underwent low-risk recalls (Class II or Class III), and 10 devices (37.0{\%}) were voluntarily withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE As manufacturers make increasing use of supplemental applications, minor device changesmay occur without supporting clinical data, which could pose a safety risk to patients.",
author = "Ezaldein, {Harib H.} and Jeffrey Scott and Yin, {Emily S.} and Alessandra Ventura and Deruyter, {Nicholaas P.} and Leffell, {David J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5757",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "154",
pages = "273--280",
journal = "JAMA Dermatology",
issn = "2168-6068",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transparency and dermatologic device approval by the US food and drug administration

AU - Ezaldein, Harib H.

AU - Scott, Jeffrey

AU - Yin, Emily S.

AU - Ventura, Alessandra

AU - Deruyter, Nicholaas P.

AU - Leffell, David J.

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration approves Class III medical devices via the premarket approval pathway, often requiring clinical data on safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can submit incremental device changes via supplemental applications, which are not subjected to such vetting measures and can cause understudied changes that lead to drift from a device's original design. OBJECTIVES To characterize the postapproval changes to Class III dermatologic devices and to evaluate inconsistencies in the use of the premarket approval pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This studywas a cross-sectional retrospective cohort analysis of a public US Food and Drug Administration database for premarket approval of devices. Included were dermatologic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2016, through the premarket pathway for device approval. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Original deviceswere identified, and their supplements were characterized chronologically, by review track, and by modification category. RESULTS The 27 dermatologic devices studied consisted of 14 injectables, 11 photodynamic therapies, a dermal replacement matrix, and a diagnostic imaging instrument. Supplemental applications are increasingly used: the data-requiring panel-track pathway was the least common approach (2.8%[16 of 562 supplements]), while the 30-day track, which does not require clinical data, was most frequently used (42.5%[239 of 562 supplements]). Four devices (14.8%) underwent low-risk recalls (Class II or Class III), and 10 devices (37.0%) were voluntarily withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE As manufacturers make increasing use of supplemental applications, minor device changesmay occur without supporting clinical data, which could pose a safety risk to patients.

AB - IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration approves Class III medical devices via the premarket approval pathway, often requiring clinical data on safety and efficacy. Manufacturers can submit incremental device changes via supplemental applications, which are not subjected to such vetting measures and can cause understudied changes that lead to drift from a device's original design. OBJECTIVES To characterize the postapproval changes to Class III dermatologic devices and to evaluate inconsistencies in the use of the premarket approval pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This studywas a cross-sectional retrospective cohort analysis of a public US Food and Drug Administration database for premarket approval of devices. Included were dermatologic devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 1980, and November 1, 2016, through the premarket pathway for device approval. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Original deviceswere identified, and their supplements were characterized chronologically, by review track, and by modification category. RESULTS The 27 dermatologic devices studied consisted of 14 injectables, 11 photodynamic therapies, a dermal replacement matrix, and a diagnostic imaging instrument. Supplemental applications are increasingly used: the data-requiring panel-track pathway was the least common approach (2.8%[16 of 562 supplements]), while the 30-day track, which does not require clinical data, was most frequently used (42.5%[239 of 562 supplements]). Four devices (14.8%) underwent low-risk recalls (Class II or Class III), and 10 devices (37.0%) were voluntarily withdrawn. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE As manufacturers make increasing use of supplemental applications, minor device changesmay occur without supporting clinical data, which could pose a safety risk to patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043978402&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85043978402&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5757

DO - 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5757

M3 - Article

VL - 154

SP - 273

EP - 280

JO - JAMA Dermatology

JF - JAMA Dermatology

SN - 2168-6068

IS - 3

ER -