The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) 510(k) Process: A Systematic Review of 1000 Cases

BACKGROUND

The vast majority of devices cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are through the 510(k) process, which allows medical devices to be quickly introduced into the market. The FDA 510(k) process is designed to minimize the burden and expense of bringing new devices to market; however, as a result, the FDA may be limited in its ability to establish the safety of these devices.

METHODS

The FDA 510(k) online archives were searched for devices cleared from 2013 to 2014. One thousand devices were randomly selected. PubMed was searched for each device to identify publications about the devices. The primary outcome was the percentage of devices cleared through the 510(k) process with no published research. Secondary outcomes included: conflict of interest (COI) of authors and outcomes of published studies on the devices.

RESULTS

A total of 6152 devices were cleared through the 510(k) process in 2013-2014. Of the 1000 randomly selected devices, 17.8% had published research. There were 375 manuscripts, of which 47 (12.5%) were randomized controlled trials. One-fourth (25.1%) of studies had a clearly identifiable COI, while COI was unclear for half (49.9%).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

There is limited evidence examining the safety and effectiveness of devices cleared via the 510(k) process. Thousands of devices are cleared through the FDA's 510(k) process each year with limited or no evidence publicly available. This has led to the market being introduced to potentially costly, nonbeneficial, or harmful devices. Devices, like prescription drugs, should undergo a more rigorous clearance process.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials.

Objective

To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis.

Interventions

Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors.

Results

Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28).

Conclusions and Relevance

Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

O13 BIOLOGIC VERSUS SYNTHETIC MESH IN VENTRAL HERNIA REPAIR: PARTICIPANT-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF TWO RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AT ONE YEAR

Aim

Biologic mesh has been increasingly utilized in complex ventral hernia repair despite limited evidence at low risk of bias supporting its growth. We hypothesized biologic mesh when compared to synthetic mesh would have fewer major complications at one year.

Material and Methods

We performed a participant-level meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologic to synthetic mesh at one year. Primary outcome was major complication (composite of mesh infection, recurrence, reoperation, or death) at one year post-operative. Secondary outcomes included length of index hospital stay, surgical site occurrence, and surgical site infection. Outcomes were assessed using frequentist generalized linear models.

Results

A total of 252 patients from two RCTs were included, 126 patients randomized to the intervention arm of biologic mesh and 126 patients randomized to the control of synthetic mesh. Median follow-up was 15 (12, 27) months. Major complication occurred in 41 (33%) patients randomized to biologic mesh, and 44 (35%) patients randomized to synthetic mesh, (relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.55, p-value 0.740). There were 36 total recurrences, 23 (18%) in the biologic arm, and 13 (10%) in the synthetic arm (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.99, p-value 0.130). The remainder of outcomes demonstrated no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

The risk of major complication did not differ between biologic versus synthetic mesh. In patients undergoing ventral hernia repair, there was no clinical benefit with biologic mesh as opposed to synthetic mesh at one year post-operative.

Patient quality of life before and after ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Recurrence is often reported as the primary outcome among studies of patients with hernias; however, there is growing interest in patient quality of life. The relationship between quality of life and recurrence is poorly understood. This study evaluates this relationship.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of 3 prospective clinical trials was performed. The modified Activities Assessment Scale, a validated, abdominal wall-specific quality of life tool was used (1 = poor quality of life and 100 = perfect quality of life). Patients with and without a hernia recurrence were compared. Baseline quality of life, follow-up quality of life, and change in quality of life were measured. The relationship between quality of life and clinical outcomes was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were followed for median (range) 30 (14-44) months, of whom 31 (13.0%) had a clinical recurrence, whereas 207 (87.0%) had no clinical recurrence. Patients with recurrence were more likely to have a lower mean baseline quality of life (14 vs 26; P = .035), follow-up quality of life (42 vs 82; P < .001), and change in quality of life (19 vs 33; P < .018). The majority of patients with or without recurrence still experienced an improvement in quality of life (68% vs 79%; P = .142).

CONCLUSION

Patients with lower baseline quality of life are likely to experience a recurrence following repair; however, most still report substantial improvements in quality of life. Assessing follow-up quality of life without accounting for baseline quality of life is incomplete; follow-up quality of life should be assessed with appropriate adjustment for baseline quality of life.