Abstract

In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or "predicates"), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device's equivalence was established. From patients' perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device. We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA's Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device. The ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1-2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003-2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently marketed devices. The mapping from the De Novo device case study was used to develop an ancestry map from the recalled predicate (recalled due to design flaws) to current substantially equivalent products in the market. Besides enabling a better understanding of the risks and benefits of the 510(k) process, mapping of connectivity of various predicates could help increase consumer confidence in the medical devices that are currently in the marketplace.

Highlights

  • Medical device industryAs per Fortune Magazine [1], the 2018 global medical devices market size was 425.5Billion USD and is expected to expand to 612.7Bn USD by 2025

  • We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA

  • Mapping predicates of medical devices cleared in the US

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Medical device industryAs per Fortune Magazine [1], the 2018 global medical devices market size was 425.5Billion USD and is expected to expand to 612.7Bn USD by 2025. In order to legally market a medical device in the US, the most common forms of premarket submissions to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the 510(k) premarket notification submission, the PMA premarket approval, and the De Novo pathway. Each of these submission types results in a determination by FDA that clears [510(k)], approves [PMA], or grants [de novo] marketing rights to the successful submitter. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a preexisting FDA-approved marketed device (or “predicates”), it can be cleared to market. It can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call