Most Recalled Medical Devices Given Lenient Approval

Article

The majority of medical devices recalled from 2005 to 2009 for risk of serious health hazard or death were approved by the less strict 510(k) process intended for devices considered low or morderate risk, according to a study published online Feb. 14 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

TUESDAY, Feb. 15 (HealthDay News) -- The majority of medical devices recalled from 2005 to 2009 for risk of serious health hazard or death were approved by the less strict 510(k) process intended for devices considered low or moderate risk, according to a study published online Feb. 14 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Diana M. Zuckerman, Ph.D., from the National Research Center for Women & Families in Washington, D.C., and colleagues analyzed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration high-risk device recalls from 2005 to 2009. The devices were approved by the FDA under the premarket approval (PMA) process (which requires testing and assessments), the less stringent 510(k) process (for items similar to those already being sold), or were exempt from FDA review.

The investigators identified 113 devices recalled by the FDA after it determined the devices could cause serious health problems or death. Of these, 21 devices were approved through the PMA process, 80 were approved through the 510(k) process, and eight were exempt from approval. The largest recall category was cardiovascular devices, with 35 recalls, 23 of which were approved by the 510(k) process. Of the remaining recalls, 51 percent were in the general hospital, anesthesiology, clinical chemistry, neurology, or ophthalmology categories.

"The standards used to determine whether a medical device is a high-risk or life-sustaining product prior to approval are clearly very different from the standards used to recall a medical device as life-threatening. Our findings reveal critical flaws in the current FDA device review system and its implementation that will require either congressional action or major changes in regulatory policy," the authors write.

One author disclosed a financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson, and one author disclosed financial ties to a research center that receives funding from various pharmaceutical companies.

AbstractFull TextEditorial

Recent Videos
Supreme Court upholds mifepristone access: Implications for women's health | Image Credit: linkedin.com
The significance of the Supreme Court upholding mifepristone access | Image Credit: unchealth.org
One year out: Fezolinetant displays patient satisfaction for managing hot flashes | Image Credit: sutterhealth.org
Addressing maternal health inequities: Insights from CDC's Wanda Barfield | Image Credit: cdc.gov
Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in brachial plexus birth Injury | Image Credit: shrinerschildrens.org
Innovations in prenatal care: Insights from ACOG 2024 | Image Credit:  uofmhealth.org.
Unlocking therapeutic strategies for menopausal cognitive decline | Image Credit: uclahealth.org.
Navigating menopause care: Expert insights from ACOG 2024 | Image Credit: mayo.edu.
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.