Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine (Drs Dhruva and Redberg); Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (Dr Bero); Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine (Dr Bero); and Division of Cardiology (Dr Redberg), University of California, San Francisco.
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.
Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF. Strength of Study Evidence Examined by the FDA in Premarket Approval of Cardiovascular Devices. JAMA. 2009;302(24):2679-2685. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1899