PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Matthew J. Swanson
AU  - James L. Johnston
AU  - Joseph S. Ross
TI  - Registration, Publication, and Outcome Reporting among Pivotal Clinical Trials that Supported FDA Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices Before and After FDAAA
AID  - 10.1101/2021.02.28.21252619
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.02.28.21252619
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/02/2021.02.28.21252619.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/02/2021.02.28.21252619.full
AB  - Background Selective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distorts the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved medical devices. The purpose of this study is to compare registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk (Class III) medical devices before and after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007.Methods Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA summaries, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all pivotal clinical studies supporting FDA approval of new high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2005 and 2020, before and after FDAAA. For published studies, we compared both the primary efficacy outcome with the PMA primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative).Results Between 2005 and 2020, the FDA approved 156 high-risk cardiovascular devices on the basis of 165 pivotal trials, 48 (29%) of which were categorized as pre-FDAAA and 117 (71%) as post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA, pivotal clinical trials were more likely to be registered (115 of 117 (98%) vs 24 of 48 (50%); p < 0.001), to report results (98 of 115 (85%) vs 7 of 24 (29%); p < 0.001) on ClinicalTrials.gov, and to be published (100 or 117 (85%) vs 28 of 48 (58%); p < 0.001) in peer-reviewed literature when compared to pre-FDAAA. Among published trials, rates of concordant primary efficacy outcome reporting were not significantly different between pre-FDAAA trials and post-FDAAA trials (24 of 28 (86%) vs 96 of 100 (96%); p = 0.07), nor were rates of concordant trial interpretation (27 of 28 (96%) vs 93 of 100 (93%); p = 0.44).Conclusions FDAAA was associated with increased registration, results reporting, and publication for trials supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Among published trials, rates of accurate primary efficacy outcome reporting and trial interpretation were high and no different post-FDAAA.Competing Interest StatementJLJ has received support from the FDA through the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program. Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938); 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. MJS declares that they have no competing interests.Funding StatementThis project was supported by the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine Summer Research Fellowship. This funding was solely used for living expenses and was not used in the design of the study or collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Because our examination of trial publications did not involve human subjects, ethics committee review was not required by the Yale University Human Research Protection Program.All 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.YesThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.FDAFood and Drug AdministrationFDAAAFood and Drug Administration Amendment ActPMAPremarket ApprovalAEDAutomated External DefibrillatorNCTNational Clinical TrialSTROBEStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology