Maryam Mooghali, Faaizah Arshad, Vinay K Rathi, Kushal T Kadakia, Alexander O Everhart, Joseph S Ross, Sanket S Dhruva
{"title":"Premarket Clinical Evidence Strength and Recalls of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices.","authors":"Maryam Mooghali, Faaizah Arshad, Vinay K Rathi, Kushal T Kadakia, Alexander O Everhart, Joseph S Ross, Sanket S Dhruva","doi":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.2626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>High-risk medical devices approved through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket approval (PMA) pathway may be supported by limited premarket clinical evidence, leaving uncertainties about safety. Whether device, premarket clinical evidence, or regulatory characteristics are associated with subsequent device recalls is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the association between device, premarket clinical evidence, and regulatory characteristics and serious recalls among high-risk therapeutic devices.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>This cross-sectional study reviewed 193 high-risk therapeutic medical devices approved through the FDA's PMA pathway between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2023. Data were analyzed between August 2025 and December 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Device characteristics, premarket pivotal clinical study characteristics, and regulatory characteristics.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and measure: </strong>The main outcome was occurrence of serious recall (Class I or II) and Class I (highest severity) recall.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2014 to 2023, the FDA approved 193 original high-risk therapeutic medical devices through the PMA pathway. As of July 31, 2025, a total of 68 (35.2%) were subject to at least 1 serious recall, with a median (IQR) of 2.6 (1.5-4.6) years from approval to first recall; 20 (10.4%) devices were subject to at least 1 Class I recall. Life-supporting or life-sustaining devices more often had serious recalls (28 of 60 [46.7%] vs 40 of 133 [30.1%]; P = .02) and Class I recalls (14 of 60 [23.3%] vs 6 of 133 [4.5%]; P < .001) than non-life-supporting and life-sustaining devices. Cardiovascular devices more often had Class I recalls than noncardiovascular devices (16 of 99 [16.2%] vs 4 of 94 [4.3%]; P = .004). Class I recalls differed by pivotal study design: single-arm with no controls, 3 of 9 (33.3%); single-arm with nonconcurrent controls, 11 of 89 (12.4%); and multiple-arm with concurrent controls, 6 of 95 (6.3%) (P = .03). Devices with required postapproval studies had more serious recalls (56 of 140 [40.0%] vs 12 of 53 [22.6%]; P = .04) than those without. Other characteristics were not associated with recall likelihood.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, more than one-third of high-risk therapeutic medical devices were subject to serious recalls. Because device, premarket clinical evidence, and regulatory characteristics were not consistently associated with serious recalls, robust postmarket surveillance is needed to ensure patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":53180,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Health Forum","volume":"7 8","pages":"e262626"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13451980/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Health Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2026.2626","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: High-risk medical devices approved through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket approval (PMA) pathway may be supported by limited premarket clinical evidence, leaving uncertainties about safety. Whether device, premarket clinical evidence, or regulatory characteristics are associated with subsequent device recalls is unknown.
Objective: To examine the association between device, premarket clinical evidence, and regulatory characteristics and serious recalls among high-risk therapeutic devices.
Design and setting: This cross-sectional study reviewed 193 high-risk therapeutic medical devices approved through the FDA's PMA pathway between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2023. Data were analyzed between August 2025 and December 2025.
Exposures: Device characteristics, premarket pivotal clinical study characteristics, and regulatory characteristics.
Main outcome and measure: The main outcome was occurrence of serious recall (Class I or II) and Class I (highest severity) recall.
Results: From 2014 to 2023, the FDA approved 193 original high-risk therapeutic medical devices through the PMA pathway. As of July 31, 2025, a total of 68 (35.2%) were subject to at least 1 serious recall, with a median (IQR) of 2.6 (1.5-4.6) years from approval to first recall; 20 (10.4%) devices were subject to at least 1 Class I recall. Life-supporting or life-sustaining devices more often had serious recalls (28 of 60 [46.7%] vs 40 of 133 [30.1%]; P = .02) and Class I recalls (14 of 60 [23.3%] vs 6 of 133 [4.5%]; P < .001) than non-life-supporting and life-sustaining devices. Cardiovascular devices more often had Class I recalls than noncardiovascular devices (16 of 99 [16.2%] vs 4 of 94 [4.3%]; P = .004). Class I recalls differed by pivotal study design: single-arm with no controls, 3 of 9 (33.3%); single-arm with nonconcurrent controls, 11 of 89 (12.4%); and multiple-arm with concurrent controls, 6 of 95 (6.3%) (P = .03). Devices with required postapproval studies had more serious recalls (56 of 140 [40.0%] vs 12 of 53 [22.6%]; P = .04) than those without. Other characteristics were not associated with recall likelihood.
Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, more than one-third of high-risk therapeutic medical devices were subject to serious recalls. Because device, premarket clinical evidence, and regulatory characteristics were not consistently associated with serious recalls, robust postmarket surveillance is needed to ensure patient safety.
期刊介绍:
JAMA Health Forum is an international, peer-reviewed, online, open access journal that addresses health policy and strategies affecting medicine, health, and health care. The journal publishes original research, evidence-based reports, and opinion about national and global health policy. It covers innovative approaches to health care delivery and health care economics, access, quality, safety, equity, and reform.
In addition to publishing articles, JAMA Health Forum also features commentary from health policy leaders on the JAMA Forum. It covers news briefs on major reports released by government agencies, foundations, health policy think tanks, and other policy-focused organizations.
JAMA Health Forum is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. The journal presents curated health policy content from across the JAMA Network, including journals such as JAMA and JAMA Internal Medicine.