Premarket Clinical Evidence Strength and Recalls of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices.

IF 12.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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.

高风险治疗性医疗器械上市前临床证据强度和召回。
重要性:通过美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)上市前批准(PMA)途径批准的高风险医疗器械可能有有限的上市前临床证据支持,留下了安全性的不确定性。器械、上市前临床证据或监管特征是否与随后的器械召回相关尚不清楚。目的:探讨高风险治疗器械中器械、上市前临床证据、监管特征和严重召回之间的关系。设计和设置:本横断面研究回顾了2014年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间通过FDA PMA途径批准的193种高风险治疗性医疗器械。数据分析时间为2025年8月至2025年12月。暴露:器械特性、上市前关键临床研究特性和监管特性。主要结果和测量方法:主要结果为严重召回(I级或II级)和I级(最严重)召回的发生。结果:2014年至2023年,FDA通过PMA途径批准了193个原高危治疗性医疗器械。截至2025年7月31日,共有68款(35.2%)车型遭遇至少一次严重召回,从批准到首次召回的中位数(IQR)为2.6(1.5-4.6)年;20件(10.4%)器械至少有1件属于I类召回。生命维持或维持设备更常发生严重召回(60例中有28例[46.7%]vs 133例中有40例[30.1%];结论和相关性:在本横断面研究中,超过三分之一的高风险治疗性医疗器械发生严重召回。由于器械、上市前临床证据和监管特征并不总是与严重召回相关,因此需要强有力的上市后监督来确保患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
7.80%
发文量
0
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书