通过510(k)途径批准的神经调节装置的临床数据和监管提交特征评估(1996-2024)。

IF 2.7
Expert review of medical devices Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-29 DOI:10.1080/17434440.2025.2508869
Bassel Almarie, Felipe Fregni
{"title":"通过510(k)途径批准的神经调节装置的临床数据和监管提交特征评估(1996-2024)。","authors":"Bassel Almarie, Felipe Fregni","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2025.2508869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The 510(k) pathway is prevalent for medical device approval, yet its integration of clinical data, especially in neuromodulation devices, remains underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated neuromodulation devices approved via the 510(k) pathway from 1996 to 2024. Using Natural Language Processing, we traced predicate networks and analyzed clinical data inclusion. Published clinical data were also reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 715 medical devices, 31 neuromodulation devices were identified, with 30 having summary documents. The predicate network included 160-related 510(k) approvals; 48 devices (30%) included clinical data, mainly from randomized trials. Nearly 30% of files were untraceable or lacked an FDA summary. Most approvals were based on a single predicate. Seven percent were subject to recalls, all approved without clinical data. Median time-to-approval was significantly longer for devices with clinical data than those without (157 vs. 110 days, <i>p</i> = 0.008). Clinical data from 36 publications included 32 trials and 4 observational studies, with a median Cohen's d of 0.83 (0.27-1.71) and NNT of 4.8 (2.4-7.9). Trials with differing indications from predicates had larger sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A significant shift toward clinical data inclusion in the 510(k) pathway was observed, particularly for neuromodulation devices. Challenges include balancing safety standards while streamlining approval process.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":"739-746"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of clinical data and regulatory submission characteristics for neuromodulation devices approved via the 510(k) pathway (1996-2024).\",\"authors\":\"Bassel Almarie, Felipe Fregni\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17434440.2025.2508869\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The 510(k) pathway is prevalent for medical device approval, yet its integration of clinical data, especially in neuromodulation devices, remains underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated neuromodulation devices approved via the 510(k) pathway from 1996 to 2024. Using Natural Language Processing, we traced predicate networks and analyzed clinical data inclusion. Published clinical data were also reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 715 medical devices, 31 neuromodulation devices were identified, with 30 having summary documents. The predicate network included 160-related 510(k) approvals; 48 devices (30%) included clinical data, mainly from randomized trials. Nearly 30% of files were untraceable or lacked an FDA summary. Most approvals were based on a single predicate. Seven percent were subject to recalls, all approved without clinical data. Median time-to-approval was significantly longer for devices with clinical data than those without (157 vs. 110 days, <i>p</i> = 0.008). Clinical data from 36 publications included 32 trials and 4 observational studies, with a median Cohen's d of 0.83 (0.27-1.71) and NNT of 4.8 (2.4-7.9). Trials with differing indications from predicates had larger sample sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A significant shift toward clinical data inclusion in the 510(k) pathway was observed, particularly for neuromodulation devices. Challenges include balancing safety standards while streamlining approval process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"739-746\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2508869\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2508869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:510(k)途径是医疗器械批准的普遍途径,但其临床数据的整合,特别是在神经调节装置方面,仍未得到充分探索。方法:我们评估了1996年至2024年通过510(k)通路批准的神经调节装置。使用自然语言处理,我们追踪谓词网络并分析临床数据包含。我们还回顾了已发表的临床数据。结果:在715个医疗器械中,鉴定出31个神经调节装置,其中30个有总结文件。谓词网络包括160个相关的510(k)批准;48台设备(30%)纳入临床数据,主要来自随机试验。近30%的文件无法追踪或缺乏FDA摘要。大多数批准都基于单个谓词。7%的药品需要召回,这些药品都是在没有临床数据的情况下获得批准的。有临床数据的器械获得批准的中位时间明显比没有临床数据的器械长(157天vs 110天,p = 0.008)。来自36篇出版物的临床数据包括32项试验和4项观察性研究,中位Cohen's d为0.83 (0.27-1.71),NNT为4.8(2.4-7.9)。具有不同指征和谓词的试验样本量较大。结论:观察到510(k)通路中临床数据纳入的重大转变,特别是对于神经调节装置。挑战包括平衡安全标准,同时简化审批流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of clinical data and regulatory submission characteristics for neuromodulation devices approved via the 510(k) pathway (1996-2024).

Objectives: The 510(k) pathway is prevalent for medical device approval, yet its integration of clinical data, especially in neuromodulation devices, remains underexplored.

Methods: We evaluated neuromodulation devices approved via the 510(k) pathway from 1996 to 2024. Using Natural Language Processing, we traced predicate networks and analyzed clinical data inclusion. Published clinical data were also reviewed.

Results: Among 715 medical devices, 31 neuromodulation devices were identified, with 30 having summary documents. The predicate network included 160-related 510(k) approvals; 48 devices (30%) included clinical data, mainly from randomized trials. Nearly 30% of files were untraceable or lacked an FDA summary. Most approvals were based on a single predicate. Seven percent were subject to recalls, all approved without clinical data. Median time-to-approval was significantly longer for devices with clinical data than those without (157 vs. 110 days, p = 0.008). Clinical data from 36 publications included 32 trials and 4 observational studies, with a median Cohen's d of 0.83 (0.27-1.71) and NNT of 4.8 (2.4-7.9). Trials with differing indications from predicates had larger sample sizes.

Conclusions: A significant shift toward clinical data inclusion in the 510(k) pathway was observed, particularly for neuromodulation devices. Challenges include balancing safety standards while streamlining approval process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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