scholarly journals The role of clinical trials in the Food and Drug Administration approval process for cardiovascular devices.

Circulation ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 1900-1902 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Sapirstein ◽  
S Alpert ◽  
T J Callahan
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13
Author(s):  
Joel Lexchin ◽  
Janice Graham ◽  
Matthew Herder ◽  
Tom Jefferson ◽  
Trudo Lemmens

Medicine regulators rely on pivotal clinical trials to make decisions about approving a new drug, but little is known about how they judge whether pivotal trials justify the approval of new drugs. We explore this issue by looking at the positions of 3 major regulators: the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Here we report their views and the implications of those views for the approval process. On various points, the 3 regulators are ambiguous, consistent, and demonstrate flexibility. The range of views may well reflect different regulatory cultures. Although clinical trial information from pivotal trials is becoming more available, regulators are still reluctant to provide detailed information about how that information is interpreted. As medicines and vaccines come up for approval for treatment of COVID-19, transparency in how pivotal trials are interpreted will be critical in determining how these treatments should be used.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danelle Hidano ◽  
Sanket Dhruva ◽  
Rita F Redberg

Introduction: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emphasizes a “life-cycle approach” to medical device regulation, in which the pre-approval process is expedited and more emphasis is placed on post-approval data in order to shorten patient access to new devices. The FDA can mandate post approval studies (PASs) for high-risk devices to augment pre-approval data. This study describes the characteristics of FDA-mandated PASs. Methods: We searched the FDA database for all PASs required for original high-risk cardiovascular devices approved from January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019. Data elements abstracted for each PAS included: study type, presence of controls, blinding, total number of patients enrolled, study duration, and whether primary outcomes were surrogate or composite measures. We also checked the FDA website for any available interim data prior to study completion. Results: The FDA approved 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices and ordered a total of 68 PASs for 49 (69%) devices. Most PASs were prospective cohorts (n=47, 69.1%). The median study size was 250 patients (IQR 151-563) and median study duration was 5 years (IQR 3-5). Only 19 studies (28%) included active or historic controls, 12 studies (17.7%) were randomized, 5 studies (7.3%) were single-blinded, and none were double-blinded (Table). Twenty-two (32.4%) studies provided data before completion of study. Conclusion: Most PAS are not randomized, lack controls, contain small numbers of patients, and have composite or surrogate primary outcomes that may not be clinically relevant, despite their importance for generating long-term clinical data for high-risk cardiovascular devices. Interim data are often not available. Increased quality and availability of evidence related to PASs would better establish device safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use. Lastly, PAS data should be readily accessible to help clinicians and patients make well-informed decisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document