Cargando…

Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large German ethics committee. MATERIALS: From the consecutive sample of stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sauerland, Stefan, Fujita-Rohwerder, Naomi, Zens, Yvonne, Molnar, Sandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30798319
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027041
_version_ 1783399629542391808
author Sauerland, Stefan
Fujita-Rohwerder, Naomi
Zens, Yvonne
Molnar, Sandra
author_facet Sauerland, Stefan
Fujita-Rohwerder, Naomi
Zens, Yvonne
Molnar, Sandra
author_sort Sauerland, Stefan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large German ethics committee. MATERIALS: From the consecutive sample of study applications between March 2010 and December 2013, we selected MD study applications requiring approval by an ethics committee and the competent federal authority. These included pre-market studies on devices that had not yet received a CE (Conformité Européenne) mark or had previously been CE marked for a different indication. Also included were post-CE studies requiring federal authority approval because the study entailed additional invasive or otherwise burdensome components. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Besides the design of the studies, we assessed the planned sample size, study duration and other aspects. RESULTS: 122 study applications were analysed: 98 (80%) concerned therapeutic rather than diagnostic devices and 84 (69%) were pre-market studies. The proportion of studies on class I, IIa, IIb and III devices was 10%, 15%, 28% and 39%, respectively. 10 studies (8%) investigated IVD MDs. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was planned in 70 (57%) of the 122 applications; studies with non-randomised control groups (n=23; 19%) or without controls (n=29; 24%) were less common. In the sub-group of pre-market studies on therapeutic devices, the proportion of RCTs was 66% (43/65). The median sample size was 120 participants or samples (IQR 53–229). The median study duration was 24 (14–38) months. 87 studies (71%) considered at least one patient-relevant outcome. 12 (17%) and 37 (53%) of the 70 RCTs applied a fully or partially blinded design, respectively. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of MD studies in Germany apply a randomised controlled design, thus contradicting the industry argument that RCTs on MDs are commonly infeasible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6398724
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63987242019-03-20 Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee Sauerland, Stefan Fujita-Rohwerder, Naomi Zens, Yvonne Molnar, Sandra BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of pre-market clinical studies performed on medical devices (MDs), including in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) MDs, in Europe. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large German ethics committee. MATERIALS: From the consecutive sample of study applications between March 2010 and December 2013, we selected MD study applications requiring approval by an ethics committee and the competent federal authority. These included pre-market studies on devices that had not yet received a CE (Conformité Européenne) mark or had previously been CE marked for a different indication. Also included were post-CE studies requiring federal authority approval because the study entailed additional invasive or otherwise burdensome components. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Besides the design of the studies, we assessed the planned sample size, study duration and other aspects. RESULTS: 122 study applications were analysed: 98 (80%) concerned therapeutic rather than diagnostic devices and 84 (69%) were pre-market studies. The proportion of studies on class I, IIa, IIb and III devices was 10%, 15%, 28% and 39%, respectively. 10 studies (8%) investigated IVD MDs. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) was planned in 70 (57%) of the 122 applications; studies with non-randomised control groups (n=23; 19%) or without controls (n=29; 24%) were less common. In the sub-group of pre-market studies on therapeutic devices, the proportion of RCTs was 66% (43/65). The median sample size was 120 participants or samples (IQR 53–229). The median study duration was 24 (14–38) months. 87 studies (71%) considered at least one patient-relevant outcome. 12 (17%) and 37 (53%) of the 70 RCTs applied a fully or partially blinded design, respectively. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of MD studies in Germany apply a randomised controlled design, thus contradicting the industry argument that RCTs on MDs are commonly infeasible. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6398724/ /pubmed/30798319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027041 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Sauerland, Stefan
Fujita-Rohwerder, Naomi
Zens, Yvonne
Molnar, Sandra
Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee
title Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee
title_full Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee
title_fullStr Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee
title_full_unstemmed Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee
title_short Premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a German ethics committee
title_sort premarket evaluation of medical devices: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical studies submitted to a german ethics committee
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6398724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30798319
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027041
work_keys_str_mv AT sauerlandstefan premarketevaluationofmedicaldevicesacrosssectionalanalysisofclinicalstudiessubmittedtoagermanethicscommittee
AT fujitarohwerdernaomi premarketevaluationofmedicaldevicesacrosssectionalanalysisofclinicalstudiessubmittedtoagermanethicscommittee
AT zensyvonne premarketevaluationofmedicaldevicesacrosssectionalanalysisofclinicalstudiessubmittedtoagermanethicscommittee
AT molnarsandra premarketevaluationofmedicaldevicesacrosssectionalanalysisofclinicalstudiessubmittedtoagermanethicscommittee