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}
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.