Balancing innovation and medical device regulation: the case of modern metal-on-metal hip replacements

Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?

BACKGROUND

The reimbursement of new technologies in inpatient care is not always linked to a requirement for evidence-based evaluation of patient benefit. In Germany, every new technology approved for market was until recently eligible for reimbursement in inpatient care unless explicitly excluded. The aim of this work was (1) to investigate the type of evidence that was available at the time of introduction of 25 innovative technologies and how this evidence evolved over time, and (2) to explore the relationship between clinical evidence and utilization for these technologies in German inpatient care.

METHODS

This study combined different methods. A systematic search for evidence published between 2003 and 2017 was conducted in four bibliographic databases, clinical trial registries, resources for clinical guidelines, and health technology assessment-databases. Information was also collected on funding mechanisms and safety notices. Utilization was measured by hospital procedures captured in claims data. The body of evidence, funding and safety notices per technology were analyzed descriptively. The relationship between utilization and evidence was explored empirically using a multilevel regression analysis.

RESULTS

The number of included publications per technology ranges from two to 498. For all technologies, non-comparative studies form the bulk of the evidence. The number of randomized controlled clinical trials per technology ranges from zero to 19. Some technologies were utilized for several years without an adequate evidence base. A relationship between evidence and utilization could be shown for several but not all technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals a mixed picture regarding the evidence available for new technologies, and the relationship between the development of evidence and the use of technologies over time. Although the influence of funding and safety notices requires further investigation, these results re-emphasize the need for strengthening market approval standards and HTA pathways as well as approaches such as coverage with evidence development.

Influence of Surface Texturing on the Dry Tribological Properties of Polymers in Medical Devices

There is a constant need to improve patient comfort and product performance associated with the use of medical devices. Efforts to optimise the tribological characteristics of medical devices usually involve modifying existing devices without compromising their main design features and functionality. This article constitutes a state-of-the-art review of the influence of dry friction on polymeric components used in medical devices, including those having microscale surface features. Surface tribology and contact interactions are discussed, along with alternative forms of surface texturing. Evident gaps in the literature, and areas warranting future research are highlighted; these include friction involving polymer Vs polymer surfaces, information regarding which topologies and feature spacings provide the best performing textured surfaces, and design guidelines that would assist manufacturers to minimise or maximise friction under non-lubricated conditions.

Critical Factors and Economic Methods for Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Medical Device Industry

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017

IMPORTANCE

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 510(k) clearance and premarket approval (PMA) pathways to ensure device safety before marketing. Premarket approval evaluates high-risk medical devices and requires clinical trials, whereas 510(k) clearance evaluates moderate-risk devices and relies on benchtop (nonclinical and biomechanical) and descriptive data. Existing literature suggests that the clinical trials required by PMA are associated with reduced risk of recall compared with devices granted 510(k) clearance. Several investigators have found weaknesses in pivotal PMA trials, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, methodological factors may have led to a previous underestimation of recall risk for devices with PMA.

OBJECTIVES

To compare risk of recall and high-risk recall between devices that received 510(k) clearance and those that received PMA and to compare the risk of recall between devices for medical specialties.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study compared devices with 510(k) clearance vs those with PMA that reached the market between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Two- to 12-year follow-up was obtained from the FDA's 510(k) and PMA medical device database. Orthopedic surgery was chosen arbitrarily as the reference category for analysis between specialties because no baseline exists. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to November 1, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The FDA issues recalls for safety concerns. These recalls are stratified into class I, II, and III, with class I representing high-risk issues for serious harm or death. The main outcome was the hazard ratio of any recall and class I recall between devices with PMA and those with 510(k) clearance. The secondary outcome was the recall hazard ratio between specialties with respect to the reference category. A single Cox proportional hazards regression model evaluating the association of medical specialty and FDA approval pathway with the risk of recall was performed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 28 246 devices received 510(k) clearance and 310 devices (10.7%) received PMA; 3012 devices (10.7%) with 510(k) clearance and 84 devices (27.1%) with PMA were recalled. A total of 216 devices (0.8%) with 510(k) clearance and 16 devices (5.2%) with PMA had class I recalls. Devices with PMA compared with those with 510(k) clearance had a hazard ratio for recall of 2.74 (95% CI, 2.19-3.44; P < .001) and a hazard ratio for high-risk recall of 7.30 (95% CI, 4.39-12.13; P < .001). Only radiologic devices were associated with an increased risk of recall (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.32-1.87; P < .001), whereas 6 specialties were assocated with a decreased risk compared with the orthopedic reference category: general and plastic surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, physical medicine, hematology, and general hospital.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that high-risk medical devices approved via PMA are associated with a greater risk of recall than previously reported. Most recalls are for devices with 510(k) clearance, also raising safety concerns. Strengthening postmarketing surveillance strategies and pivotal trials may improve device safety.

3D Printing for Hip Implant Applications: A Review

There is a rising demand for replacement, regeneration of tissues and organ repairs for patients who suffer from diseased/damaged bones or tissues such as hip pains. The hip replacement treatment relies on the implant, which may not always meet the requirements due to mechanical and biocompatibility issues which in turn may aggravate the pain. To surpass these limitations, researchers are investigating the use of scaffolds as another approach for implants. Three-dimensional (3D) printing offers significant potential as an efficient fabrication technique on personalized organs as it is capable of biomimicking the intricate designs found in nature. In this review, the determining factors for hip replacement and the different fabrication techniques such as direct 3D printing, Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and stereolithography (SLA) for hip replacement. The study also covers surface modifications of 3D printed implants and provides an overview on 3D tissue regeneration. To appreciate the current conventional hip replacement practices, the conventional metallic and ceramic materials are covered, highlighting their rationale as the material of choice. Next, the challenges, ethics and trends in the implants' 3D printing are covered and conclusions drawn. The outlook and challenges are also presented here. The knowledge from this review indicates that 3D printing has enormous potential for providing a pathway for a sustainable hip replacement.

Predicting changes in the status of patient-reported outcome measures after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: an observational cohort study with a median follow-up of ten years

AIMS

It is not known whether change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time can be predicted by factors present at surgery, or early follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with changes in PROM status between two-year evaluation and medium-term follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing Birmingham Hip Resurfacing completed the Veteran's Rand 36 (VR-36), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Tegner Activity Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at two years and a minimum of three years. A change in score was assessed against minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between patient factors and deterioration in PASS status between follow-ups.

RESULTS

Overall, 18% of patients reported reductions in mHHS total score exceeding MCID, and 21% reported similar reductions for WOMAC function scores. Nonetheless, almost all patients remained above PASS thresholds for WOMAC function (98%) and mHHS (93%). Overall, 66% of patients with mHHS scores < PASS at two years reported scores > PASS at latest follow-up. Conversely, 6% of patients deteriorated from > PASS to < PASS between follow-ups. Multivariable modelling indicated body mass index (BMI) > 27 kg/m², VR-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) < 51, VR-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) > 55, mHHS < 84 at two years, female sex, and bone graft use predicted these deteriorating patients with 79% accuracy and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84.

CONCLUSION

Due to largely acceptable results at a later follow-up, extensive monitoring of multiple PROMs is not recommended for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing patients unless they report borderline or unacceptable hip function at two years, are female, are overweight, or received a bone graft during surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1431-1437.

An Overview of Food and Drug Administration Medical Device Legislation and Interplay with Current Medical Practices

Since the emergence of medical devices, legislation has been developed to allow the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee their development, marketing, and usage. This paper discusses the history of the FDA's involvement in medical devices, current approval processes, and several case examples. Additionally, it discusses both short- and long-term effects with unexpected consequences to U.S. health care delivery.

The outcome and survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients aged less than 50 years

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a consecutive series of patients aged less than 50 years at the time of arthroplasty using the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system (BHR), with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Patients and Methods

A total of 226 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, who underwent BHR and presented to a single surgeon, were included in the study. Survival of the implant was confirmed by cross-checking with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Kaplan–Meier survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed. Pre- and postoperative PROMs were compared with t-tests, and postoperative scores were compared using anchor analysis with age and gender matched normative data.

Results

At median follow-up of 12 years (interquartile range (IQR) 10 to 13), six BHRs were revised, with a cumulative rate of survival of 96.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.2 to 99.4) at 15 years, and with a significantly lower (p = 0.019) cumulative rate of revision than the national average for the same device at ten years. Most revisions (n = 4) were undertaken early, less than three years postoperatively, and occurred in women. Patient-reported general health (Veteran’s Rand-36), disease state (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), function (modified Harris Hip Score) and level of activity (Tegner activity score) maintained significant (p < 0.01 for each) improvements beyond ten years postoperatively and were equal to, or exceeded, age- and gender-matched normative data in more than 80% of the patients.

Conclusion

Longer term PROMs after BHR, from a single surgeon, for patients aged less than 50 years remain under-reported. We found that the outcome after a BHR, at a minimum of ten years postoperatively, remained satisfactory, particularly for self-reported hip function.