‘Where’s the patient?’: Experts question FDA’s final recall guidance

MEDTECHDIVE – April 6, 2022 – By Ricky Zipp

While the guidance encouraged the use of electronic communications in recalls, a change experts have advocated for, some questioned why the agency did not address more problems with the system.

Medical device recalls and product safety issues have gained public attention over the last several years.

Patients, in particular, have questioned the recall process and criticized the FDA and industry after high-profile events highlighted inefficiencies in the system that put patient safety at risk.

Madris Kinard, CEO of Device Events, a company that compiles and interprets FDA medical device reports and recalls, also thought the inclusion of electronic communications was needed but added that the agency still did not go far enough to address the issue.  “I felt [the guidance] was not written strongly enough,” Kinard said, “because there are serious deficiencies with the recall processes, and moving to all electronic notifications is critical and long, long past due, and that wasn’t mandated or even encouraged as strongly as it needed to be.”

Read Full Article…

Millions reported problems with dental implants

YouTube Video – November 9, 2021 – azfamily powered by 3TV & CBS5AZ 

Arizona’s Family Investigates looked into the costly procedure of getting dental implants and why millions of reported problems went unnoticed.

Madris Kinard, CEO and Founder of Device Events, is interviewed at 2:32 of the video.  The Device Events software was used to search the FDA’s MAUDE database and to provide metrics on medical device adverse event reports for this investigation.

Watch The Video…

FDA says Philips knew about toxic foam for years before massive recall

Medical Design & Outsourcing – November 16, 2021 – By Jim Hammerand 

The FDA said it observed potential violations of federal medical device safety rules when inspecting a Philips Respironics manufacturing facility connected to the Class I recall of more than 15 million respiratory devices.

The FDA recently requested additional safety testing on replacement materials and issued a Form 483. The form details how Philips and its foam supplier were aware for years that polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam could break down and potentially enter a device’s air pathway, causing health problems for users.

In the Form 483, FDA alerted management at the Royal Philips (NYSE:PHG) subsidiary of conditions that the inspector considered possible violations of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or related regulations. The post-inspection report is not a determination of wrongdoing and will be considered by the FDA along with any evidence or documents collected from the facility and responses offered by Philips.

Read Full Article…

Signals Newsletter – October 2021 – Staples & Staplers


PRODUCT CODES – DESCRIPTION                                                   
GAG                           Stapler, Surgical
GDW                          Staple, Implantable

REPORTS* RECEIVED BY THE FDA                                                    






* Includes both Medical Device Reports (MDRs) and Alternative Summary Reports (ASRs)

View Signals Newsletter – August 2021 – Staples & Staplers

FDA medical device regs, safety checks questioned by AMA ethics journal

MEDTECHDIVE – September 29, 2021 – Nick Paul Taylor

The AMA Journal of Ethics has taken a deep dive into U.S. regulation of medical devices, raising questions about whether FDA is striking the right balance between supporting innovation and protecting patients.

In setting up the issue, Ariel Wampler, a plastic and reconstructive surgery physician at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Massachusetts, shared data on the regulation, use of and impact of medical devices. Most of the statistics date back years but still provide a snapshot of the case against the current approach. Wampler notes that less than 1% of medical devices went through two large clinical trials, as is standard for pharmaceuticals, from 2003 to 2007.

As it’s typically easier and safer to discontinue use of a drug than an implant, Wampler suggests it “might be reasonable” to expect some devices be held to higher safety standards than pharmaceuticals.

Reported serious safety problems are exceedingly rare — less than 1% of devices cleared or approved between 2004 and 2009 have been subject to a Class I recall, though the recall system itself has also been criticized as being piecemeal and not comprehensive. Clinical trials of implants can be more complex, expensive and ethically problematic than studies of drugs.

Read Full Article…

Is the FDA Failing Women?

AMA Journal of Ethics – Viewpoint – September 2021 – Madris Kinard, MBA and Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc


Many devices in current use were marketed before the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began regulating devices in 1976. Thus, manufacturers of these devices were not required to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, which presents both clinical and ethical problem for patients, especially for women, as some of the most dangerous devices—such as implanted contraceptive devices— are used only in women. This article investigates whether and to what extent devices for women receive less rigorous scrutiny than devices for men. This article also suggests how the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health could more effectively ensure safety and effectiveness of devices that were marketed prior to 1976.

Read Full Article…

Thousands of Patients Were Implanted With Heart Pumps That the FDA Knew Could Be Dangerous

ProPublica – Health Care – by Neil Bedi – August 5, 2021 

Inspectors repeatedly found manufacturing and device quality problems with the HeartWare heart pump. But the FDA did not penalize the company, and patients had the device implanted on their hearts without knowing the facts.

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball-sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Read Full Article…

Patient deaths called ‘injury,’ ‘other’ in FDA medical device database: study

MEDTECHDIVE – by Ricky Zipp – July 30, 2021

A researcher noted mislabeled patient death reports can go missed by the agency, potentially leading to unsafe devices remaining on the market.

A new analysis of the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database finds patient deaths associated with the use of medical devices are being mislabeled in the system and potentially being missed by the agency.

This type of negligence can bring about a lawsuit to those who are doing this and putting people’s lives at risk. This may require such law firms as LawTX.com as well as others who are in the vicinity of where these mislabeled reports are, to take action and start legal proceedings for families and individuals who have been affected by this outcome.

In a manual review of 1,000 adverse event medical device reports identified by a natural language processing algorithm, used to identify mislabeled patient death reports in the MAUDE system, 23% of reports were labeled as injury, malfunction, missing or other, rather than death, according to the study published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The report raises more questions about the FDA’s complex and often opaque public reporting process and database for medical device adverse event reports.

Madris Kinard, CEO of Device Events, which developed the software used to identify reports in the FDA’s database for the study, said identifying the correct number of deaths or serious injuries in mislabeled reports is crucial as it could potentially change the safety status of some devices.

“You can’t just say across the board that this is going to fix the FDA’s problems. There is no one number, typically, that they say, ‘Okay, well, when it reaches this number, we pull [a device.]’ It really depends on other market factors,” Kinard, one of the JAMA report’s authors and a former FDA official, said.

Read Full Article…

Reporting of Death in US Food and Drug Administration Medical Device Adverse Event Reports in Categories Other Than Death

JAMA Internal Medicine | Original Investigation | HEALTH CARE POLICY AND LAW – July 26, 2021
Authors: Christina Lalani, MD; Elysha M. Kunwar, BA; Madris Kinard, MBA; Sanket S. Dhruva, MD, MHS; Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc

IMPORTANCE In the US, most postmarket medical device safety data are obtained through adverse event reports that are submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Adverse event reports are classified by the reporter as injury, malfunction, death, or other. If the device may have caused or contributed to a death, or if the cause of death is unknown, the FDA requires that the adverse event be reported as a death.

OBJECTIVE To determine the percentage of medical device adverse event reports submitted to the MAUDE database that were not classified as death even though the patient died.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this study, a natural language processing algorithm was applied to the MAUDE database, followed by manual text review, to identify reports in the injury, malfunction, other or missing categories that included at least 1 term that suggested a patient death, such as patient died or patient expired, from December 31, 1991, to April 30, 2020, for any medical device.

EXPOSURES Manual review of a random sample of 1000 adverse event reports not classified as death and of selected reports for 62 terms that are associated with deaths but were not classified as death.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Percentage of adverse event reports in which the patient was said to have died in the narrative section of the report but the reporter classified the report in a category other than death.

RESULTS The terms in the natural language processing algorithm identified 290 141 reports in which a serious injury or death was reported. Of these, 151 145 (52.1%) were classified by the reporter as death and 47.9% were classified as malfunction, injury, other, or missing. For the overall sample, the percentage of reports with deaths that were not classified as deaths was 23% (95% CI, 20%-25%), suggesting that approximately 31 552 reports in our sample had deaths that were classified in other categories. The overall percentage of missed deaths, defined as the percentage of deaths that were classified in other categories, was 17% (95% CI, 16%-19%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Many of the findings of this study suggest that many medical device adverse event reports in the FDA’s MAUDE database that involved a patient death are classified in categories other than death. As the FDA only routinely reviews all adverse events that are reported as patient deaths, improving the accuracy of adverse event reporting may enhance patient safety.

Read Full Article…