Medical Device Safety: The Regulation of Medical Devices for Public Health and Safety examines the prospects for achieving global harmonization in medical device regulation and describes a possible future global system. Unresolved difficulties are discussed while solutions are proposed. An essential book for all those involved in health physics, en

While the safety assessment (“biocompatibility”) of medical devices has been focused on issues of local tissue tolerance (irritation, sensitization, cytotoxicity) and selected quantal effects (genotoxicity and acute lethality) since first being regulated in the late 1950s, this has changed as devices assumed a much more important role in healthcare and became more complex in both composition and in their design and operation. Add to this that devices now frequently serve as delivery systems for drugs, and that drugs may be combined with devices to improve device performance, and the problems of ensuring patient safety with devices has become significantly more complex. A part of this, requirements for ensuring safety (once based on use of previously acceptable materials – largely polymers and metals) have come to requiring determining which chemical entities are potentially released from a device into patients (and how much is released). Then an appropriate and relevant (yet also conservative) risk assessment must be performed for each identified chemical structure. The challenges inherent in meeting the current requirements are multifold, and this text seeks to identify, understand, and solve all of them. • Identify and verify the most appropriate available data. • As in most cases such data is for a different route of exposure, transform it for use in assessing exposure by the route of interest. • As the duration (and rate) of exposure to moieties released from a device are most frequently different (longer) than what available data speaks to, transformation across tissue is required. • As innate and adaptive immune responses are a central part of device/patient interaction, assessing potential risks on this basis are required. • Incorporating assessments for special populations such as neonates. • Use of (Q)SAR (Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships) modeling in assessments. • Performance and presentation of integrative assessments covering all potential biologic risks. Appendices will contain summarized available biocompatibility data for commonly used device materials (polymers and metals) and safety assessments on the frequently seen moieties in extractions from devices.

v. 1. Research findings -- v. 2. Concepts and methodology -- v. 3. Implementation issues -- v. 4. Programs, tools and products.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring that medical devices are safe and effective before they go on the market. As part of its assessment of FDA's premarket clearance process for medical devices, the IOM held a workshop June 14-15 to discuss how to best balance patient safety and technological innovation. This document summarizes the workshop.

Medical devices that are deemed to have a moderate risk to patients generally cannot go on the market until they are cleared through the FDA 510(k) process. In recent years, individuals and organizations have expressed concern that the 510(k) process is neither making safe and effective devices available to patients nor promoting innovation in the medical-device industry. Several high-profile mass-media reports and consumer-protection groups have profiled recognized or potential problems with medical devices cleared through the 510(k) clearance process. The medical-device industry and some patients have asserted that the process has become too burdensome and is delaying or stalling the entry of important new medical devices to the market. At the request of the FDA, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined the 510(k) process. Medical Devices and the Public's Health examines the current 510(k) clearance process and whether it optimally protects patients and promotes innovation in support of public health. It also identifies legislative, regulatory, or administrative changes that will achieve the goals of the 510(k) clearance process. Medical Devices and the Public's Health recommends that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gather the information needed to develop a new regulatory framework to replace the 35-year-old 510(k) clearance process for medical devices. According to the report, the FDA's finite resources are best invested in developing an integrated premarket and postmarket regulatory framework.

A detailed analysis of the ethical, legal, and regulatory landscape of medical devices in the US and EU.

This User’s Guide is intended to support the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and quality evaluation of registries created to increase understanding of patient outcomes. For the purposes of this guide, a patient registry is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure, and that serves one or more predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purposes. A registry database is a file (or files) derived from the registry. Although registries can serve many purposes, this guide focuses on registries created for one or more of the following purposes: to describe the natural history of disease, to determine clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of health care products and services, to measure or monitor safety and harm, and/or to measure quality of care. Registries are classified according to how their populations are defined. For example, product registries include patients who have been exposed to biopharmaceutical products or medical devices. Health services registries consist of patients who have had a common procedure, clinical encounter, or hospitalization. Disease or condition registries are defined by patients having the same diagnosis, such as cystic fibrosis or heart failure. The User’s Guide was created by researchers affiliated with AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program, particularly those who participated in AHRQ’s DEcIDE (Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions About Effectiveness) program. Chapters were subject to multiple internal and external independent reviews.