1960-2023年FDA提交的神经调节装置临床试验设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Bassel Almarie, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios, Anna Carolyna Gianlorenco, Yasmin Eltawil, Alma Sanchez, Felipe Fregni
{"title":"1960-2023年FDA提交的神经调节装置临床试验设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Bassel Almarie, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios, Anna Carolyna Gianlorenco, Yasmin Eltawil, Alma Sanchez, Felipe Fregni","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2025.2524450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Integration of clinical trials into FDA approval processes is essential for ensuring the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 1960 to 2023, 125 FDA-approved neuromodulation records corresponding to 109 publications (64 randomized, 45 nonrandomized trials) were identified. Regulatory records and published trial characteristics were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Safety outcomes were reported in 95.4% of randomized and 82.2% of nonrandomized trials, with serious adverse events in ~ 75% of studies. Efficacy analyses showed small Cohen's d effect sizes in 65.85% of outcomes, medium in 24.39%, and large in 9.76%, with a median NNT of 4.65. Industry funded 87.5% of randomized trials, and conflicts of interest were disclosed in 92.2% of publications. Approximately 20% of devices were recalled - exclusively invasive. Randomized trials had larger sample sizes (median 152 subjects) than nonrandomized studies (median 53; <i>p</i> < 0.001), and study duration varied significantly by indication (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings reveal considerable heterogeneity in the evidence supporting neuromodulation devices, with trials showing systematic safety documentation but modest efficacy. Industry-funded trials dominate the evidence base, with recalls primarily limited to invasive technologies. Evidence gaps persist in minority representation and longitudinal data.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical trial design in FDA submissions for neuromodulation devices, 1960-2023: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Bassel Almarie, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios, Anna Carolyna Gianlorenco, Yasmin Eltawil, Alma Sanchez, Felipe Fregni\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17434440.2025.2524450\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Integration of clinical trials into FDA approval processes is essential for ensuring the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 1960 to 2023, 125 FDA-approved neuromodulation records corresponding to 109 publications (64 randomized, 45 nonrandomized trials) were identified. Regulatory records and published trial characteristics were reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Safety outcomes were reported in 95.4% of randomized and 82.2% of nonrandomized trials, with serious adverse events in ~ 75% of studies. Efficacy analyses showed small Cohen's d effect sizes in 65.85% of outcomes, medium in 24.39%, and large in 9.76%, with a median NNT of 4.65. Industry funded 87.5% of randomized trials, and conflicts of interest were disclosed in 92.2% of publications. Approximately 20% of devices were recalled - exclusively invasive. Randomized trials had larger sample sizes (median 152 subjects) than nonrandomized studies (median 53; <i>p</i> < 0.001), and study duration varied significantly by indication (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings reveal considerable heterogeneity in the evidence supporting neuromodulation devices, with trials showing systematic safety documentation but modest efficacy. Industry-funded trials dominate the evidence base, with recalls primarily limited to invasive technologies. Evidence gaps persist in minority representation and longitudinal data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert review of medical devices\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-21\",\"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/10.1080/17434440.2025.2524450\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2524450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将临床试验整合到FDA审批过程中对于确保神经调节装置的安全性和有效性至关重要。方法:从1960年到2023年,125个fda批准的神经调节记录对应109篇出版物(64个随机试验,45个非随机试验)。审查了监管记录和已发表的试验特征。结果:95.4%的随机试验和82.2%的非随机试验报告了安全性结果,约75%的研究报告了严重不良事件。疗效分析显示65.85%的结果有较小的Cohen’s d效应,24.39%为中等效应,9.76%为较大效应,中位NNT为4.65。行业资助了87.5%的随机试验,92.2%的出版物披露了利益冲突。大约20%的器械被召回——完全是侵入性的。随机试验的样本量(中位数为152例)大于非随机研究(中位数为53例;结论:我们的研究结果显示,支持神经调节装置的证据存在相当大的异质性,试验显示系统的安全性文件,但疗效适中。行业资助的试验主导了证据基础,召回主要局限于侵入性技术。在少数族裔代表性和纵向数据方面,证据差距仍然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical trial design in FDA submissions for neuromodulation devices, 1960-2023: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Integration of clinical trials into FDA approval processes is essential for ensuring the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation devices.

Methods: From 1960 to 2023, 125 FDA-approved neuromodulation records corresponding to 109 publications (64 randomized, 45 nonrandomized trials) were identified. Regulatory records and published trial characteristics were reviewed.

Results: Safety outcomes were reported in 95.4% of randomized and 82.2% of nonrandomized trials, with serious adverse events in ~ 75% of studies. Efficacy analyses showed small Cohen's d effect sizes in 65.85% of outcomes, medium in 24.39%, and large in 9.76%, with a median NNT of 4.65. Industry funded 87.5% of randomized trials, and conflicts of interest were disclosed in 92.2% of publications. Approximately 20% of devices were recalled - exclusively invasive. Randomized trials had larger sample sizes (median 152 subjects) than nonrandomized studies (median 53; p < 0.001), and study duration varied significantly by indication (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our findings reveal considerable heterogeneity in the evidence supporting neuromodulation devices, with trials showing systematic safety documentation but modest efficacy. Industry-funded trials dominate the evidence base, with recalls primarily limited to invasive technologies. Evidence gaps persist in minority representation and longitudinal data.

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