PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Johnston, James L.
AU  - Dhruva, Sanket S.
AU  - Ross, Joseph S.
AU  - Rathi, Vinay K.
TI  - Clinical Evidence Supporting FDA Clearance of First-of-a-Kind Therapeutic Devices via the De Novo Pathway Between 2011 and 2019
AID  - 10.1101/2020.04.23.20077164
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.04.23.20077164
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/12/2020.04.23.20077164.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/12/2020.04.23.20077164.full
AB  - Importance In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers have increasingly sought to expedite patient access to first-of-a-kind devices via the De Novo premarket review pathway. Understanding the strength of clinical evidence supporting FDA clearance through this pathway can help guide clinical adoption of novel devices and ongoing regulatory development of the postmarket surveillance infrastructure.Objective Our primary objective was to characterize the strength of clinical evidence supporting FDA clearance of therapeutic De Novo devices. Key secondary objectives were 1) characterization of FDA post-marketing requirements for De Novo devices and 2) study of the use of these devices as the basis for devices subsequently cleared via the 510(k) process.Design Retrospective cross-sectional analysisSetting Publicly available online FDA databases, including the De Novo database, the 510(k) clearance database, the 522 Post Market Surveillance database, and the Recalls of Medical Devices databaseParticipants All moderate-risk therapeutic devices cleared via the De Novo pathway between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019.Main Outcome Measures (1) proportion of De Novo devices cleared based on evidence from a pivotal clinical study, (2) proportion of pivotal study primary effectiveness endpoints that were met, (3) proportion of De Novo devices subject to FDA-required postmarket studies, and (4) proportion of De Novo devices serving as the basis for at least one subsequently cleared 510(k) device (i.e., new models or competitor products).Results There were 63 (of 65; 96.9%) moderate-risk therapeutic devices cleared by FDA via the De Novo pathway between 2011 and 2019 for which decision summary documentation was publicly available. Of the 63 devices, 51 (81.0%) were supported by pivotal clinical studies (n=54 studies); the remainder (n= 12; 19.0%) were not supported by a pivotal clinical study. The majority of pivotal studies were randomized (57.4%), multi-armed (61.1%), and used an active (25.9%) or sham (35.2%) comparator arm; 17 (31.5%) failed to meet at least one primary effectiveness endpoint. Among the 63 devices cleared via the De Novo pathway, one (1.6%) was subject to an FDA-required posttmarket study and 32 (47.8%) served as a predicate device for new models or competitor devices subsequently cleared through the 510(k) process.Conclusions Between 2011 and 2019, the FDA cleared the majority of first-of-a-kind moderate-risk therapeutic devices via the De Novo pathway based on premarket evidence from pivotal clinical studies. However, 43% of devices were cleared without clinical evidence from pivotal studies or based on pivotal studies that failed to meet at least one primary effectiveness endpoint. The FDA rarely required postmarket studies of these devices, which often served as the basis for new models and competitor products subsequently cleared via the 510(k) process.Question What is the strength of premarket clinical evidence supporting FDA clearance of first-of-a-kind therapeutic devices via the De Novo review pathway?Findings In this retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 63 devices, 43% were cleared without supporting premarket pivotal studies or based on pivotal studies that failed to meet at least one primary effectiveness endpoint. The FDA rarely required postmarket studies of therapeutic De Novo devices, which often served as the basis for new models and competitor products subsequently cleared via the 510(k) process.Meaning The FDA often clears first-of-a-kind therapeutic devices via the De Novo pathway despite limited clinical evidence of effectiveness.Competing Interest StatementMr. Johnston has received support from the FDA through the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program. Dr. Dhruva currently receives research support through the National Institute of Health (K12HL138046) and the Greenwall Foundation. He also reports receiving travel support from the Food & Drug Administration and the National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc). In the past 36 months, Dr. Ross received research support through Yale University from Medtronic, Inc. and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop methods for postmarket surveillance of medical devices (U01FD004585), from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting (HHSM-500-2013-13018I), and from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to better understand medical technology evaluation; Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration to establish Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International and to establish the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency (CRIT) at Yale. Dr. Rathi has no conflicts of interest or funding to disclose.Funding Statementn/aAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data used is available on public FDA databases, namely the De Novo database, the 510(k) clearance database, the 522 Post Market Surveillance database, and the Recalls of Medical Devices database