Volume Introduction: "The Future of Medical Device Regulation: Innovation and Protection"
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Preface/postscript › Research
Standard
Volume Introduction: "The Future of Medical Device Regulation: Innovation and Protection". / Shachar, Carmel; Cohen, Glenn ; Minssen, Timo; Price II, William Nicholson; Robertson, Christopher.
The Future of Medical Device Regulation: Innovation and Protection. Cambridge University Press, 2022. p. 1-10.Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Preface/postscript › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - GEN
T1 - Volume Introduction: "The Future of Medical Device Regulation: Innovation and Protection"
AU - Shachar, Carmel
AU - Cohen, Glenn
AU - Minssen, Timo
AU - Price II, William Nicholson
AU - Robertson, Christopher
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Medical devices have historically been less regulated than their drug and biologic counterparts. A benefit of this less demanding regulatory regime is facilitating innovation by making new devices available to consumers in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, there is increasing concern that this approach raises serious public health and safety concerns. The Institute of Medicine in 2011 published a critique of the American pathway allowing moderate-risk devices to be brought to the market through the less-rigorous 501(k) pathway,1 flagging a need for increased postmarket review and surveillance. High-profile recalls of medical devices, such as vaginal mesh products, along with reports globally of nearly two million injuries and more than 80,000 deaths linked to faulty medical devices,2 have raised public health critiques regarding the oversight of these products. Should we follow the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to reduce the use of the 510(k) pathway, and, if so, what should replace it? What would an ideal regulatory pathway, reflecting the twin goals of innovation and patient protection, look like in the twenty-first century? These questions are complicated by new tools and mechanisms that can be used to achieve our goals. For example, in an era of big data, where we have the capabilities to better follow postmarket incidents, what should postmarket review look like?
AB - Medical devices have historically been less regulated than their drug and biologic counterparts. A benefit of this less demanding regulatory regime is facilitating innovation by making new devices available to consumers in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, there is increasing concern that this approach raises serious public health and safety concerns. The Institute of Medicine in 2011 published a critique of the American pathway allowing moderate-risk devices to be brought to the market through the less-rigorous 501(k) pathway,1 flagging a need for increased postmarket review and surveillance. High-profile recalls of medical devices, such as vaginal mesh products, along with reports globally of nearly two million injuries and more than 80,000 deaths linked to faulty medical devices,2 have raised public health critiques regarding the oversight of these products. Should we follow the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to reduce the use of the 510(k) pathway, and, if so, what should replace it? What would an ideal regulatory pathway, reflecting the twin goals of innovation and patient protection, look like in the twenty-first century? These questions are complicated by new tools and mechanisms that can be used to achieve our goals. For example, in an era of big data, where we have the capabilities to better follow postmarket incidents, what should postmarket review look like?
U2 - 10.1017/9781108975452.001
DO - 10.1017/9781108975452.001
M3 - Preface/postscript
SP - 1
EP - 10
BT - The Future of Medical Device Regulation
PB - Cambridge University Press
ER -
ID: 259506794