Off-Label Use of Medical Devices in Children

Pediatric Device Innovation: An Analysis of Food and Drug Administration Authorizations Over Time

BACKGROUND

Despite a tremendous increase in the number of orthopaedic devices authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), novel devices designed specifically for the pediatric population remain sparse. Surgeons frequently repurpose adult implants for "off-label" use in pediatric patients, with both legal and technical ramifications. This study seeks to objectively quantify and characterize the nature of pediatric device innovation over time.

METHODS

The FDA employs 4 pathways for assessing safety and effectiveness of novel devices prior to authorization. Perceived device risk and novelty determine the pathway. Orthopaedic devices were identified from the FDA's online database. All devices approved since inception via the Humanitarian Device Exemption, Pre-Market Approval, and De Novo regulatory pathways were included and grouped as "highly innovative." Because of their number and the rapidity of their development, the evaluation of 510(k) devices was limited to those cleared from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. Such 510(k) devices make up ∼97% of devices and by definition are less risky and less novel. Approval statements were assessed for pediatric indications within the approved labeling. As a secondary analysis, the impact of company size on developing a product with a pediatric indication was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,925 devices cleared via the 510(k) pathway, 9 (0.5%) were designed exclusively for pediatrics and 160 (8.3%) included pediatric indications. Five of the 9 pediatrics-only devices were for spine and 4 were for trauma indications. Of the 97 highly innovative devices, only 2 (2%) were exclusively pediatric and another 2 (2%) included pediatric indications. The 2 pediatrics-only devices were for the spine. Large and medium-sized companies were 1.9 times and 1.6 times more likely to bring to market a device with pediatric indications than a small company, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovation for pediatric orthopaedic devices lags substantially behind that for adult orthopaedic devices. These findings are consistent with clinical experience and the common practice of modifying adult implants for "off-label" use in pediatric patients. Despite long-standing efforts to stimulate innovation for this vulnerable population, our results suggest little progress.

Economic evaluations of medical devices in paediatrics: a systematic review and a quality appraisal of the literature

BACKGROUND

Although economic evaluations (EEs) have been increasingly applied to medical devices, little discussion has been conducted on how the different health realities of specific populations may impact the application of methods and the ensuing results. This is particularly relevant for pediatric populations, as most EEs on devices are conducted in adults, with specific aspects related to the uniqueness of child health often being overlooked. This study provides a review of the published EEs on devices used in paediatrics, assessing the quality of reporting, and summarising methodological challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on the economic value of devices used in paediatrics in the form of full EEs (comparing both costs and consequences of two or more devices). After the removal of duplicates, article titles and abstracts were screened. The remaining full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. In-vitro diagnostic devices were not considered in this review. Study descriptive and methodological characteristics were extracted using a structured template. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted followed by a critical discussion on the main challenges found in the literature.

RESULTS

39 full EEs were eligible for review. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (67%) and focused on high-risk therapeutic devices (72%). Studies comprised 25 cost-utility analyses, 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 cost-benefit analysis. Most of the studies considered a lifetime horizon (41%) and a health system perspective (36%). Compliance with the CHEERS 2022 items varied among the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the scant body of evidence on EEs focusing on devices in paediatrics results highlight the need to improve the quality of reporting and advance methods that can explicitly incorporate the multiple impacts related to the use of devices with distinct characteristics, as well as consider specific child health realities. The design of innovative participatory approaches and instruments for measuring outcomes meaningful to children and their families should be sought in future research.

Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children.

METHODS

Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022.

RESULTS

From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety.

CONCLUSION

Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children.

IMPACT

In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Efficacy of human resource development program for young industry personnel who will be involved in future medical device development

BACKGROUND

Training next-generation personnel from small/medium enterprises (SMEs) is an urgent issue in promoting medical device research and development (R&D). Since 2014 we have engaged in governmentally funded human resource development program for medical/non-medical SMEs, and have assessed its effectiveness by analyzing self-evaluation of achievement level (SEAL) data obtained before and after the training course.

METHODS

Human resource development experts interviewed 34 key opinion leaders with deep knowledge of medical device R&D from industry, government, and academia. The skills required for R&D personnel were written down, and a set of skills was created by making a greatest common measure in the list of common elements among them. Using that skill sets, skill evaluations were conducted on trainees at "Osaka University Training Course," twice before participation and after completion of the entire program using SEAL assessment.

RESULTS

There were 97 men and 25 women, with one-third in the'30 s. Among them, 61 participants (50%) were from R&D divisions, and 32 (26%) were from business/sales divisions. 94 (77%) were from medical SMEs, and 28 (23%) were from non-medical SMEs (new entry). After completing the training course, significant growth was observed in every item of both Soft and Hard skill sets. Especially in new entry SME members, a striking improvement was observed in practical medical knowledge to enhance communication with medical doctors (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our training course, though 7-day-short in total, showed that both Soft and Hard skills could be improved in young medical/non-medical SME members. Further assessment is needed to establish the necessary skill sets for our future partners from industries, to foster the creation of innovative medical devices through med-tech collaboration.

Open source approaches for pediatric global health technologies

Access to medical technologies is a critical component of universal access to care; however, the advancement of technologies for children has historically lagged behind those for adults. The small market size, anatomic and physiologic variability, and legal and ethical implications pose unique barriers to developing and commercialising paediatric biomedical innovations. These challenges are magnified in low-resource settings (LRS), which often lack appropriate regulatory oversight, support for service contracts, and supply chain capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed shortcomings in the traditional industry model for medical technologies, while also catalysing open-source approaches to technology development and dissemination. Open-source pathways - where products are freely licenced to be distributed and modified - addressed key shortages in critical equipment. Relatedly, we argue that open-source approaches can accelerate paediatric global health technology development. Open-source approaches can be tailored to clinical challenges independent of economic factors, embrace low-cost manufacturing techniques, and can be highly customisable. Furthermore, diverse stakeholders, including families and patients, are empowered to participate in collaborative communities of practice. How to regulate the development, manufacture, and distribution of open-source technologies remains an ongoing area of exploration. The need for democratised innovation must be carefully balanced against the imperatives of safety and quality for paediatric-specific solutions. This can be achieved, in part, through close coordination between national regulatory agencies and decentralised networks where products can be peer-reviewed and tested. Altogether, there is significant potential for open source to advance more equitable and sustainable medical innovations for all children.

European expert recommendations on clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices for children

Several high-risk medical devices for children have become unavailable in the European Union (EU), since requirements and costs for device certification increased markedly due to the EU Medical Device Regulation. The EU-funded CORE-MD project held a workshop in January 2023 with experts from various child health specialties, representatives of European paediatric associations, a regulatory authority and the European Commission Directorate General Health and Food Safety. A virtual follow-up meeting took place in March 2023. We developed recommendations for investigation of high-risk medical devices for children building on participants' expertise and results of a scoping review of clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children. Approaches for evaluating and certifying high-risk medical devices for market introduction are proposed.

Characteristics and Results of Pediatric Medical Device Studies: 2017-2022

OBJECTIVES

The development of medical devices for children faces unique challenges that have contributed to a paucity of devices specifically designed and tested for children. Increased knowledge on research activities for pediatric devices can guide optimal study design and ensure timely dissemination of clinical findings.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of interventional studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, initiated January 1, 2017, through December 12, 2022, evaluating a Food and Drug Administration-regulated class II or III device, and enrolling any pediatric patients (aged ≤17 years). Data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov on study characteristics and from Devices@FDA on device features. For completed studies, we determined whether results were reported in a peer-reviewed publication as of December 27, 2022.

RESULTS

Among 482 studies, 406 (84.2%) examined a class II device and 76 (15.8%) a class III device. The most common device types were diabetes-related devices (N = 57, 11.8%) and monitors and measurement devices (N = 39, 8.1%). Most studies were single-center (N = 326, 67.6%), used a nonrandomized (N = 255, 52.9%), open label (N = 350, 72.6%) design, and were funded by academic institutions (N = 278, 57.7%) or industry (N = 142, 29.5%). A total of 291 (60.4%) studies included a primary outcome of only efficacy without safety endpoints. Among completed studies, more than half (N = 64, 51.6%) enrolled <50 participants and 71.0% (N = 88) <100. After median follow-up of 3.0 years, results were available in publications for 27 (21.8%) completed studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings serve to inform programs and initiatives seeking to increase pediatric-specific device development. In addition to considerations on ensuring rigorous trial design, greater focus is needed on timely dissemination of results generated in pediatric device studies.

Is There Really No Kit for Kids? Quantification of Manufacturer Recommendations Regarding Paediatric Use For High-Volume IR Devices

AIMS

The development of paediatric specific devices appears to lag behind advancements in our specialty. Children could therefore be limited in the number of procedures available to them unless we continue to use and modify adult devices 'off-label'. This study quantifies the proportion of IR devices in which paediatric use is indicated by the manufacturer.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of device instructions for use (IFU), assessing inclusion of children was performed. Vascular access, biopsy, drainage, and enteral feeding devices, from 28 companies who sponsored BSIR, CIRSE and SIR (2019-2020) as determined by the meeting websites, were included. Devices for which the IFU was not available were excluded.

RESULTS

190 (106 vascular access, 40 biopsy, 39 drainage and 5 feeding) devices with IFU's from 18 medical device manufacturers were assessed. 49/190 (26%) IFU's referenced children. 6/190 (3%) explicitly stated the device could be used in children and 1/190 (0.5%) explicitly stated the device was not for use in children. 55/190 (29%) implied they could be used in children through caution notes. The most common caution was a reference to the size of the device that could be accommodated in a child (26/190, 14%).

CONCLUSIONS

This data identifies an unmet need for paediatric IR devices and could be used to support the future development of devices intended for the children we treat. There is potentially a larger proportion (29%) of devices suitable for paediatric use, but which lack manufacturer explicit support.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 2c, Cross-Sectional study.

Bioethics for Neonatal Cardiac Care

BACKGROUND

Clinicians caring for neonates with congenital heart disease encounter challenges with ethical implications in daily practice and must have some basic fluency in ethical principles and practical applications.

METHODS

Good ethical practice begins with a thorough understanding of the details and narrative of each individual case, examination via classic principles of bioethics, and further framing of that translation into practice.

RESULTS

We explore some of these issues and expand awareness through the lens of a case presentation beginning with fetal considerations through end-of-life discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

We include specific sections that bring attention to shared decision-making, research ethics, and outcomes reporting. We review empirical evidence and highlight recommendations.

US Food and Drug Administration Approval of High-risk Cardiovascular Devices for Use in Children and Adolescents, 1977-2021

This study uses data from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) databases to quantify approval of high-risk cardiovascular devices for use in pediatric populations and assess the clinical evidence supporting the approvals.

Innovation With Ethics in Pediatric Orthopaedics

Surgeons should thoughtfully consider whether to introduce a new procedure into their practice. Considerations include the severity of the condition, potential risk of harm, treatment alternatives, patient population, ability to appropriately consent patient/families, and available clinical and institutional resources as well as published evidence and regulatory status. Whenever possible, new procedures should be standardized, studied, and reported upon so that the greater community can learn from experience and refine the indications to minimize risks for future patients. Small scale innovation can readily be introduced into practice. Surgeons should always strive to systemically study new procedures so as to be able to assess benefits and effects.

Pediatric Medical Device Development and Regulation: Current State, Barriers, and Opportunities

Few medical devices are designed and marketed specifically for children. Instead, adult devices are often repurposed and used off-label in pediatrics. The innovation gap between pediatric and adult devices is complex and multifactorial. This review aims to summarize the medical device landscape, describe barriers to pediatric device development, and provide an update on current strategies to help overcome these limitations. Medical devices are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. They are registered, cleared, or approved on the basis of a 3-tier risk classification system and a differentiated set of regulatory pathways. This includes some for products that receive special designations on the basis of specific aspects that warrant more rapid review and approval. Pediatric devices number only one-quarter of those developed for adults for multiple reasons. Clinically, innovators must adjust their products to address the smaller sizes, growth, and longer duration of use in children. Smaller sample sizes and population heterogeneity also challenge the ability to obtain sufficient safety data for regulatory submissions. Financial concerns stem from lower pediatric reimbursement rates coupled with a lack of nationally standardized coverage. There are a number of promising initiatives, including the Pediatric Device Consortia Program, Early Feasibility Studies, and the new System of Hospitals for Innovation in Pediatrics - Medical Devices. However, the gap will likely not be narrowed without broad cooperation across stakeholders from industry, academia, patient advocacy groups, health care providers, investors, payors, regulators, and Congress.

Transcatheter Device Therapy and the Integration of Advanced Imaging in Congenital Heart Disease

Transcatheter device intervention is now offered as first line therapy for many congenital heart defects (CHD) which were traditionally treated with cardiac surgery. While off-label use of devices is common and appropriate, a growing number of devices are now specifically designed and approved for use in CHD. Advanced imaging is now an integral part of interventional procedures including pre-procedure planning, intra-procedural guidance, and post-procedure monitoring. There is robust societal and industrial support for research and development of CHD-specific devices, and the regulatory framework at the national and international level is patient friendly. It is against this backdrop that we review transcatheter implantable devices for CHD, the role and integration of advanced imaging, and explore the current regulatory framework for device approval.

Digital Health Technologies in Pediatric Trials

BACKGROUND

Advances in the miniaturization of sensors and other technologies provide opportunities to collect physiological and/or functional data directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The use of such technologies in children is particularly promising. Objective, quantifiable measurements made by these technologies, often on a continuous or frequent basis, may provide more robust data than the episodic reports from caregivers that are used in traditional pediatric trials.

METHODS

We reviewed the pros and cons of these technologies for use in a variety of pediatric diseases, including seizure and neuromuscular disorders, cardiorespiratory diseases, and metabolic disorders.

RESULTS

Correlation between sensor measurements and patient observations or traditional clinical measurements varied depending on the disease being evaluated. There was a notable dearth of reports on the use of digital health technology in pediatric patients. Given the range of sensors and measurements that can be made by DHTs, selection of the design, metrics and types of sensors best suited to disease evaluation presents challenges for adoption of these technologies in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Traditional measurements of drug effects are often deficient, particularly in the evaluation of infants and young children. The opportunity to make objective, frequent measurements may increase our power to detect and quantify responses to therapy in these populations. Further research and evaluation are needed to realize the full scientific potential of remote monitoring in pediatric clinical trials.

The newborn delivery room of tomorrow: emerging and future technologies

Advances in neonatal care have resulted in improved outcomes for high-risk newborns with technologies playing a significant part although many were developed for the neonatal intensive care unit. The care provided in the delivery room (DR) during the first few minutes of life can impact short- and long-term neonatal outcomes. Increasingly, technologies have a critical role to play in the DR particularly with monitoring and information provision. However, the DR is a unique environment and has major challenges around the period of foetal to neonatal transition that need to be overcome when developing new technologies. This review focuses on current DR technologies as well as those just emerging and further over the horizon. We identify what key opinion leaders in DR care think of current technologies, what the important DR measures are to them, and which technologies might be useful in the future. We link these with key technologies including respiratory function monitors, electoral impedance tomography, videolaryngoscopy, augmented reality, video recording, eye tracking, artificial intelligence, and contactless monitoring. Encouraging funders and industry to address the unique technological challenges of newborn care in the DR will allow the continued improvement of outcomes of high-risk infants from the moment of birth. IMPACT: Technological advances for newborn delivery room care require consideration of the unique environment, the variable patient characteristics, and disease states, as well as human factor challenges. Neonatology as a speciality has embraced technology, allowing its rapid progression and improved outcomes for infants, although innovation in the delivery room often lags behind that in the intensive care unit. Investing in new and emerging technologies can support healthcare providers when optimising care and could improve training, safety, and neonatal outcomes.

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

In the European Union (EU), the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent ‘conformity assessment’ organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the Medical Device Directive, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details – which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE–MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024. Here, we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:839-849. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210081

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent 'conformity asssessment' organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details ‒ which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE‒MD project (Coordination of Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.

Ensuring Adequate Development and Appropriate Use of Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Medical Imaging

Of over 100 FDA-cleared artificial intelligence (AI) tools for triage, detection, or diagnosis in medical imaging, only one is cleared for use in children. As is, children may be unable to benefit from the advances that AI provides to adults. Furthermore, dataset demographics are frequently absent from the public-facing FDA documents, and it is not apparent that the software is unsuitable for use in pediatric patients. Herein, recommendations for change are proposed.

Quantification of US Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval Statements for High-Risk Medical Devices With Pediatric Age Indications

IMPORTANCE

Medical device companies submit premarket approval (PMA) statements to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of the highest-risk class of devices. Devices indicated for the pediatric population that use the PMA pathway have not been well characterized or analyzed.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterize high-risk devices with pediatric age indications derived from PMA statements.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study of PMA statements, those statements containing the words indicated or intended for medical devices listed in the FDA PMA database as of February 2020 were retrieved. Age indications were manually annotated in these approval statements via PubAnnotation. Based on the PMA identification from the PMA statements, device metadata including product codes, regulation numbers, advisory panels, and approval dates were queried.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was discernment of the distribution of devices indicated for the pediatric population (neonate, infant, child, and adolescent). Secondary measures included outlining the clinical specialties, device types, and lag time between the initial approval date and the first date of an approval statement with a pediatric indication for generic device categories.

RESULTS

A total of 297 documents for 149 unique devices were analyzed. Based on the manual age annotations, 102 devices with a pediatric indication, 10 with a neonate age indication, 32 with an infant age indication, 60 with a child age indication, and 94 with an adolescent age indication were identified. For indications for patients from age 17 to 18 years, the number of devices available nearly doubled from 42 devices to 81 devices. Although more than half of the surveyed devices had a pediatric age indication, many were available only for a limited range of the pediatric population (age 18-21 years). For indications for patients from age 0 to 17 years, the mean (SD) number of clinical specialties at each age was 7.27 (1.4), and 12 clinical specialties were represented from ages 18 to 21 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study on device PMA statements, a gap was identified in both quantity and diversity of high-risk devices indicated for the pediatric population. Because the current scarcity of pediatric devices may limit therapeutic possibilities for children, this study represents a step toward quantifying this scarcity and identifying clinical specialties with the greatest need for pediatric device innovation and may help inform future device development efforts.

Comparison of the investigational device exemption and post-approval trials of the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve

OBJECTIVE

We compared 5-year outcomes of transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) replacement with the Melody TPV in the post-approval study (PAS) and the investigational device exemption (IDE) trial.

BACKGROUND

As a condition of approval of the Melody TPV after the IDE trial, the Food and Drug Administration required that a PAS be conducted to evaluate outcomes of TPV replacement in a "real-world" environment. The 5-year outcomes of the PAS have not been published, and the IDE and PAS trials have not been compared.

METHODS

The cohorts comprised all patients catheterized and implanted at 5 IDE sites and 10 PAS sites. Differences in trial protocols were detailed. Time-related outcomes and valve-related adverse events were compared between the two trials with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing.

RESULTS

167 patients (median age, 19 years) were catheterized and 150 underwent TPV replacement in the IDE trial; 121 were catheterized (median age, 17 years) and 100 implanted in the PAS. Freedom from hemodynamic dysfunction (p = .61) or any reintervention (p = .74) over time did not differ between trials. Freedom from stent fracture (p = .003) and transcatheter reintervention (p = .010) were longer in PAS, whereas freedom from explant (p = .020) and TPV endocarditis (p = .007) were shorter. Clinically important adverse events (AEs) were reported in 14% of PAS and 7.2% of IDE patients (p = .056); the incidence of any particular event was low in both.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamic and time-related outcomes in the PAS and IDE trials were generally similar, confirming the effectiveness of the Melody TPV with real-world providers. There were few significant complications and limited power to identify important differences in AEs. The lack of major differences in outcomes between the two studies questions the usefulness of mandated costly post-approval studies as part of the regulatory process for Class III medical devices.

Pediatric Medical Devices - Survey of Pediatric Cardiologists and Cardiovascular Surgeons in Japan

Background: In Japan, the choice of pediatric medical devices is limited because of 2 "device lag" problems: Japan lags behind the USA and Europe in device development, and development of pediatric devices lags behind that of adult devices. We aimed to identify the problems with and impediments to pediatric medical device development as recognized by pediatric physicians in Japan. Methods and Results: A voluntary survey of pediatric medical devices for all council members of the Japanese Society of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery was conducted in 2019. The response rate was 47.1% (154/327). The respondents were 115 pediatric cardiologists (74.7%) and 39 cardiovascular surgeons (25.3%). Approximately 90% believed that difficulties in development existed. Approximately 70% were dissatisfied with the pediatric medical devices currently available in Japan, which was a result of the unavailability of medical devices approved overseas, few types and sizes, and off-label use. Factors that hindered the development of pediatric medical devices included anatomical issues specific to children with congenital heart disease, as well as system issues such as lack of corporate profitability, development cost, and amount of time for development. Conclusions: Pediatric cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons regard "device lag" and "off-label use" in Japan as important hindrances to the delivery of better medical care for pediatric patients with congenital heart disease.

Comparison of supportive regulatory measures for pediatric medical device development in Japan and the United States

Further development of medical devices for children is required in Japan, but the development of such devices is delayed compared to that of medical devices for adults. Herein, we investigated policies for advancing the development of pediatric medical devices in Japan and the United States. Considering the achievements of each policy, we proposed a strategy to promote further development of pediatric medical devices in Japan. We investigated policies for supporting the development of pediatric medical devices and approved cases in Japan and the United States by searching contents of websites of regulatory bodies and other related administrations, and scientific papers. We found the main six policies in Japan and nine main policies in the United States for the development of pediatric medical devices. In the United States, various measures have initiated mainly in the 2000s, while in Japan, the main measures have been in place since 2013. Similarities were found in both countries, such as subsidies for application fees and research and development expenses, exemption of requirements for regulatory approval, and priority review and consultation by the regulatory body. Our study revealed that there are similarities in initiatives by both countries. To promote further development of pediatric medical devices in the future, improvements to expediting the review process to approval by the regulatory body, global development, and implementation of alternative measures to ensure the efficacy and safety of the device instead of large-scale clinical trials should be anticipated through cooperation among industry, government, and academia.

IMI - Industry Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Myopia Control Report

Purpose

To discuss guidelines and ethical considerations associated with the development and prescription of treatments intended for myopia control (MC).

Methods

Critical review of published papers and guidance documents was undertaken, with a view to carefully considering the ethical standards associated with the investigation, development, registration, marketing, prescription, and use of MC treatments.

Results

The roles and responsibilities of regulatory bodies, manufacturers, academics, eye care practitioners, and patients in the use of MC treatments are explored. Particular attention is given to the ethical considerations for deciding whether to implement a MC strategy and how to implement this within a clinical trial or practice setting. Finally, the responsibilities in marketing, support, and education required to transfer required knowledge and skills to eye care practitioners and academics are discussed.

Conclusions

Undertaking MC treatment in minors creates an ethical challenge for a wide variety of stakeholders. Regulatory bodies, manufacturers, academics, and clinicians all share an ethical responsibility to ensure that the products used for MC are safe and efficacious and that patients understand the benefits and potential risks of such products. This International Myopia Institute report highlights these ethical challenges and provides stakeholders with recommendations and guidelines in the development, financial support, prescribing, and advertising of such treatments.

A model for overcoming challenges in academic pediatric medical device innovation

Technological advancements in medical devices developed for adults far outpace the development of technologies designed for pediatric patients in the USA and other countries. This technology lag was previously reflected in a lack of pediatric-specific innovation within our academic institution. To address the institutional deficit of device innovation around pediatric patients, we formed unique partnerships both within our university and extending to the medical device industry, and developed novel programmatic approaches. The Pediatric Device Innovation Consortium (PDIC) bridges the medical device community and the University of Minnesota. Since 2014, the PDIC has supported 22 pediatric medical technology innovation projects, provided funds totaling more than $500,000, licensed two technologies, and advanced two technologies to patient use. Here, we describe the PDIC model and method, the PDIC approach to common challenges that arise in the development of small-market medical technologies at an academic institution, and iterations to our collaborative, multidisciplinary approach that have matured throughout our experience. The PDIC model continues to evolve to reflect the special needs of innovation for smaller markets and the unique role of clinician innovators. Our approach serves as a successful model for other institutions interested in creating support mechanisms for pediatric or small-market technology development.

Clinical pharmacology considerations for children supported with ventricular assist devices

The ventricular assist device is being increasingly used as a "bridge-to-transplant" option in children with heart failure who have failed medical management. Care for this medically complex population must be optimised, including through concomitant pharmacotherapy. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic alterations affecting pharmacotherapy are increasingly discovered in children supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, another form of mechanical circulatory support. Similarities between extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and ventricular assist devices support the hypothesis that similar alterations may exist in ventricular assist device-supported patients. We conducted a literature review to assess the current data available on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in children with ventricular assist devices. We found two adult and no paediatric pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies in ventricular assist device-supported patients. While mechanisms may be partially extrapolated from children supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, dedicated investigation of the paediatric ventricular assist device population is crucial given the inherent differences between the two forms of mechanical circulatory support, and pathophysiology that is unique to these patients. Commonly used drugs such as anticoagulants and antibiotics have narrow therapeutic windows with devastating consequences if under-dosed or over-dosed. Clinical studies are urgently needed to improve outcomes and maximise the potential of ventricular assist devices in this vulnerable population.