BioSpace.com

Biotech and Pharmaceutical
News & Jobs
Search the Site
 
   
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Channel Medical Device and Diagnostics Channel Clinical Research Channel BioSpace Collaborative    Job Seekers:  Register | Login          Employers:  Register | Login  

NEWSLETTERS
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions

NEWS
News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE

CAREER NETWORK
Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Browse Biotech Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

HOTBEDS
Regional News
US & Canada
  Biotech Bay
  Biotech Beach
  Genetown
  Pharm Country
  BioCapital
  BioMidwest
  Bio NC
  BioForest
  Southern Pharm
  BioCanada East
  US Device
Europe
Asia

DIVERSITY

INVESTOR
Market Summary
News
IPOs

PROFILES
Company Profiles

START UPS
Companies
Events

INTELLIGENCE
Research Store

INDUSTRY EVENTS
Biotech Events
Post an Event
RESOURCES
Real Estate
Business Opportunities

 News | News By Subject | News by Disease News By Date | Search News
eNewsletter Signup
Miles
Km80.5

   

Most High-Risk CV Devices Approved Without Tests Vice Standard Care: American Medical Association


11/30/2012 10:08:24 AM

"Comparative effectiveness" has become a buzzword in medical research as well as healthcare policy, yet a recent review of cardiovascular device approvals in the US suggests only a minority are ever tested against standard treatment before they are approved for the US market [1]. Writing in a research letter published November 7, 2012 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr Connie E Chen (Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, CA) and colleagues note that just 40% of all high-risk cardiovascular devices reviewed by the FDA between 2000 and 2011 obtained premarket approval based on studies that included randomization to "active comparators." The devices they reviewed included stents, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and left ventricular assist devices; "active comparator" was defined as proven interventions already used by American physicians at the time the device was being tested. The rest of the studies that formed the basis for device approvals over this period used historical controls from previously conducted studies (13%) or so-called "objective performance criteria" or "performance goals" (25%)—typically numerical benchmarks established by published studies of similar devices or, in some cases, expert opinion alone. A full 22% of devices obtained FDA approval on the basis of studies with no form of control whatsoever. "It's hard to know if a new device is safe and more effective than alternative treatments unless it is compared with conventional treatment," Chen and colleagues write. "While occasionally use of active controls may not be possible . . . more frequent use of a comparator group may help to better inform clinical and regulatory decisions."

Read at the heart.org

   

ADD TO DEL.ICIO.US    ADD TO DIGG    ADD TO FURL    ADD TO STUMBLEUPON    ADD TO TECHNORATI FAVORITES