• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Editors: FDA medical-device approval studies flawed

Editors: FDA medical-device approval studies flawed

July 22, 2011
CenterWatch Staff

Studies concluding U.S. reviews of medical devices lag behind those in Europe and drive up costs for makers are flawed, according to editors of three medical journals, Bloomberg News reported.

Those studies were unfit for a peer-reviewed journal, editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Archives of Internal Medicine wrote in letters to Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

California Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the panel, asked the editors to review the studies in advance of a subcommittee hearing on device approvals, said Karen Lightfoot, a Waxman spokeswoman.

A Stanford University study released in November that surveyed 204 medical-device companies found that high-risk devices took an average of 54 months to gain FDA approval, compared with 11 months in Europe. A California Healthcare Institute analysis from February concluded inefficiency at the FDA was pushing jobs and business abroad.

Representative Joe Barton of Texas, a senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce panel, has urged the FDA to cut the red tape and makes its review process for devices more consistent.

The Stanford study led by Associate Professor of Medicine Joshua Makower concluded the average U.S. development cost to get devices cleared ran from $31 million for a lower-risk product to $94 million for one with higher risks, and is featured on the web site of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a Washington lobbying group representing device makers.

The company data at the heart of the study isn’t typical fare for clinical journals, said Makower, in a telephone interview. “They have not brought their own data,” he said of his detractors. “They have a lot of opinions but no data.”

Makower received responses from only 20% of the 1,000 device-makers polled for the study, said Jeanne Ireland, the FDA’s Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, in a July 18 letter to Waxman. Some companies that responded had never had a product evaluated by the agency, she said.

“These reporting rates are likely to produce an inherently biased result because they are not based on a representative sample of all medical-device companies,” Ireland wrote.

Makower said a 20% response rate is “a reasonable and substantial” cross-section with which to make a judgment.

Other editors providing comments to the House panel were Howard Bauchner, editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Rita Redberg, editor-in-chief of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Upcoming Events

  • 16Feb

    Fundamentals of FDA Inspection Management: Reduce Anxiety, Increase Inspection Success

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Revamp-360x240.png

    Califf Calls for Major Evidence Generation Revamp, Experts’ Opinions Differ

  • AskTheExpertsGreen-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Managing Investigational Products

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Survey Outlines Site Challenges, Successes on Diversity

  • PatientCentricity-360x240.png

    Site Spotlight: DM Clinical Shows Patient Centricity Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing