Golish S Raymond, Reed Michael L
Department of Surgery, Jupiter Medical Center, Palm Beach, FL, USA.
North American Spine Foundation, Jupiter, FL, USA.
Spine J. 2017 Jan;17(1):150-157. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.09.015. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
Recently, there has been increased public awareness of regulatory actions by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on spinal devices. There has also been increased scrutiny of the pivotal clinical trials of these devices.
To investigate the premarket approval (PMA) of class III spinal devices in the United States since the turn of the century. To explore clinically relevant issues that affect the interpretation of investigational device exemption trials.
Literature review.
From 2000 to 2015, data on PMA applications for spinal devices were obtained from two sources. First, meetings of FDA's Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel were identified from the Federal Register. Second, the FDA database of approved PMA applications was queried. For each device, two authors reviewed all archival data. There was no external source of funding.
Twenty-one devices met the study criteria. There were 76.2% that received approval and 47.6% that went to panel. Arthroplasty devices were most common (52.4%), least likely to go to panel (3 of 11), and most likely to be approved after panel (3 of 3). Biologic devices were most likely to go to panel (3 of 3) and least likely to be approved after panel (1 of 3). Before and after 2009, there was no decrease in the number of spinal devices approved. All 21 devices were studied in a pivotal clinical trial. All trials except one were randomized controlled trials, and all trials except one were two-arm noninferiority designs.
There has been no decrease in the number of new FDA-approved class III spinal devices since the turn of the century. The majority of devices have been for cervical arthroplasty. By contrast, biologic devices were most likely to go to panel and least likely to be approved after panel. The pivotal trials for nearly all devices were randomized, two-arm, noninferiority trials.
最近,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)对脊柱器械的监管行动引起了公众更多关注。这些器械的关键临床试验也受到了更严格的审查。
调查自本世纪初以来美国III类脊柱器械的上市前批准(PMA)情况。探讨影响研究器械豁免试验解读的临床相关问题。
文献综述。
2000年至2015年期间,脊柱器械PMA申请数据来自两个来源。首先,从《联邦公报》中确定FDA骨科和康复器械专家小组的会议。其次,查询FDA批准的PMA申请数据库。对于每个器械,两位作者查阅了所有存档数据。无外部资金来源。
21种器械符合研究标准。76.2%获得批准,47.6%进入专家小组审议。关节成形术器械最为常见(52.4%),进入专家小组审议的可能性最小(11种中的3种),在专家小组审议后获得批准的可能性最大(3种中的3种)。生物器械进入专家小组审议的可能性最大(3种中的3种),在专家小组审议后获得批准的可能性最小(3种中的1种)。2009年前后,获批脊柱器械的数量没有减少。所有21种器械都在关键临床试验中进行了研究。除一项试验外,所有试验均为随机对照试验,除一项试验外,所有试验均为双臂非劣效性设计。
自本世纪初以来,FDA批准的新型III类脊柱器械数量没有减少。大多数器械用于颈椎关节成形术。相比之下,生物器械进入专家小组审议的可能性最大,在专家小组审议后获得批准的可能性最小。几乎所有器械的关键试验都是随机、双臂、非劣效性试验。