Devices
Years late, FDA moves on a flawed approval pathway
The Food and Drug Administration is finally moving on a plan to improve a medical device approval program that critics warn has overlooked risky devices, Lizzy Lawrence reports.
In general, medical device manufacturers don't have to test products on people to score FDA clearance; instead, they must demonstrate that their products are "substantially equivalent" to devices already on the market, termed "predicates." That process is known as the 510(k) pathway, accounts for the vast majority of new medical devices launched on the market each year, including x-ray machines and wheelchairs.
Critics have warned, however, that the pathway doesn't appropriately account for the fact that clinical data for predicates might be out of date. So five years after promising to fix the 510(k) program, the agency published some guidelines late last week explaining how it now plans to evaluate devices — including by asking manufacturers to avoid previously marketed devices that were recalled for design issues or safety concerns, and to submit flow charts explaining why they chose to submit those devices if they do.
It might not work, experts told Lizzy.
"It's likely that these will lead to small improvements in terms of patient safety, but none of the proposed suggestions solve the fundamental issue with 510k," said Alex Everhart, a health economist at Washington University. "Sometimes the FDA is going to make mistakes." Read more from Lizzy here.
Telehealth
Study: Spanish speakers face telehealth challenges
A secret shopper study led by RAND's Lori Uscher-Pines suggests that Spanish speakers face more challenges than other patients when scheduling telehealth appointments. Over a few hundred calls to California safety net clinics, nearly a fifth of calls in Spanish ended with the scheduler hanging up on the patient or telling them no one could assist them in Spanish, the study found. Callers told schedulers they were new patients looking for depression medication.
Findings suggest that language guidance at clinics may not be adequate — especially if it focuses on patient-clinician communication instead of on patients' interactions with schedulers, authors wrote.
No comments