Cargando…
Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process
INTRODUCTION: Transvaginal mesh devices are approved in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), through the 510(k) system. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit to harm balance of mesh approved for pelvic organ prolapse. We, therefore, assessed the evidence at the time of approv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29212782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017125 |
_version_ | 1783286011944501248 |
---|---|
author | Heneghan, Carl J Goldacre, Ben Onakpoya, Igho Aronson, Jeffrey K Jefferson, Tom Pluddemann, Annette Mahtani, Kamal R |
author_facet | Heneghan, Carl J Goldacre, Ben Onakpoya, Igho Aronson, Jeffrey K Jefferson, Tom Pluddemann, Annette Mahtani, Kamal R |
author_sort | Heneghan, Carl J |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Transvaginal mesh devices are approved in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), through the 510(k) system. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit to harm balance of mesh approved for pelvic organ prolapse. We, therefore, assessed the evidence at the time of approval for transvaginal mesh products and the impact of safety studies the FDA mandated in 2012 because of emerging harms. METHODS: We used FDA databases to determine the evidence for approval of transvaginal mesh. To create a ‘family tree’ of device equivalence, we used the 510(k) regulatory approval of the 1985 Mersilene Mesh (Ethicon) and the 1996 ProteGen Sling (Boston Scientific), searched for all subsequently related device approvals, and for the first published randomised trial evidence. We assessed compliance with all FDA 522 orders issued in 2012 requiring postmarketing surveillance studies. RESULTS: We found 61 devices whose approval ultimately relied on claimed equivalence to the Mersilene Mesh and the ProteGen Sling. We found no clinical trials evidence for these 61 devices at the time of approval. Publication of randomised clinical trials occurred at a median of 5 years after device approval (range 1–14 years). Analysis of 119 FDA 522 orders revealed that in 79 (66%) the manufacturer ceased market distribution of the device, and in 26 (22%) the manufacturer had changed the indication. Only seven studies (six cohorts and new randomised controlled trial) covering 11 orders were recruiting participants (none had reported outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal mesh products for pelvic organ prolapse have been approved on the basis of weak evidence over the last 20 years. Devices have inherited approval status from a few products. A publicly accessible registry of licensed invasive devices, with details of marketing status and linked evidence, should be created and maintained at the time of approval. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5728256 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57282562017-12-19 Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process Heneghan, Carl J Goldacre, Ben Onakpoya, Igho Aronson, Jeffrey K Jefferson, Tom Pluddemann, Annette Mahtani, Kamal R BMJ Open Surgery INTRODUCTION: Transvaginal mesh devices are approved in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), through the 510(k) system. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit to harm balance of mesh approved for pelvic organ prolapse. We, therefore, assessed the evidence at the time of approval for transvaginal mesh products and the impact of safety studies the FDA mandated in 2012 because of emerging harms. METHODS: We used FDA databases to determine the evidence for approval of transvaginal mesh. To create a ‘family tree’ of device equivalence, we used the 510(k) regulatory approval of the 1985 Mersilene Mesh (Ethicon) and the 1996 ProteGen Sling (Boston Scientific), searched for all subsequently related device approvals, and for the first published randomised trial evidence. We assessed compliance with all FDA 522 orders issued in 2012 requiring postmarketing surveillance studies. RESULTS: We found 61 devices whose approval ultimately relied on claimed equivalence to the Mersilene Mesh and the ProteGen Sling. We found no clinical trials evidence for these 61 devices at the time of approval. Publication of randomised clinical trials occurred at a median of 5 years after device approval (range 1–14 years). Analysis of 119 FDA 522 orders revealed that in 79 (66%) the manufacturer ceased market distribution of the device, and in 26 (22%) the manufacturer had changed the indication. Only seven studies (six cohorts and new randomised controlled trial) covering 11 orders were recruiting participants (none had reported outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal mesh products for pelvic organ prolapse have been approved on the basis of weak evidence over the last 20 years. Devices have inherited approval status from a few products. A publicly accessible registry of licensed invasive devices, with details of marketing status and linked evidence, should be created and maintained at the time of approval. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-12-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5728256/ /pubmed/29212782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017125 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Surgery Heneghan, Carl J Goldacre, Ben Onakpoya, Igho Aronson, Jeffrey K Jefferson, Tom Pluddemann, Annette Mahtani, Kamal R Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process |
title | Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process |
title_full | Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process |
title_fullStr | Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process |
title_full_unstemmed | Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process |
title_short | Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process |
title_sort | trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the us fda approval process |
topic | Surgery |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5728256/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29212782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017125 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT heneghancarlj trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess AT goldacreben trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess AT onakpoyaigho trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess AT aronsonjeffreyk trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess AT jeffersontom trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess AT pluddemannannette trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess AT mahtanikamalr trialsoftransvaginalmeshdevicesforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicdatabasereviewoftheusfdaapprovalprocess |