This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 38/6/1737    most recent STROKEAHA.106.478172v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goldstein, L. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goldstein, L. B. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Other Ethics and Policy Related Article

(Stroke. 2007;38:1737.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorials

Regulatory Device Approval for Stroke

Fair and Balanced?

Larry B. Goldstein, MD

From the Duke Center for Cerebrovascular Disease, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University, and Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Correspondence to Larry B. Goldstein, MD, Box 3651, Duke Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail golds004@mc.duke.edu

Key Words: stroke • therapy • FDA • regulatory requirements

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Dr Peña et al provide a regulatory perspective on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) device approval process.¹ Reflecting the growing importance of the topic, this is the second such review and accompanying editorial comment to appear in Stroke,^2,3 the first being prompted by the FDA’s clearance of the MERCI retriever device.⁴ For those more familiar with the FDA’s requirements for the introduction of a new pharmaceutical, the differences in the regulatory approach for device approval are striking.

The FDA’s Premarket Notification 510(k) clearance process is the most frequently used and requires that a new device be substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device (ie, the new device is substantially similar in design, function, and indication for use to one previously approved). The approval can be based entirely on preclinical data; no human testing is necessarily required. The assumption is that the new device represents an incremental change and does not compromise safety as compared with the older one. It might or might not have purported advantages as compared with a device or devices that are already in use for the same or similar purpose. Whether the new device is truly as safe or actually has the professed advantages does not need to be established through a comparative study. The analogy to a pharmaceutical might be a new drug for a specific indication that has a slightly altered chemical structure which is anticipated to increase its potency based on the results of studies conducted in tissue culture or . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

An Example of US Food and Drug Administration Device Regulation: Medical Devices Indicated for Use in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Carlos Peña, Khan Li, Richard Felten, Neil Ogden, and Mark Melkerson
Stroke 2007 38: 1988-1992. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]