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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heneghan, Carl J, Goldacre, Ben, Onakpoya, Igho, Aronson, Jeffrey K, Jefferson, Tom, Pluddemann, Annette, Mahtani, Kamal R
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