Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Medical Device Safety Concerns Rheumatologists

Kurt Ullman  |  Issue: December 2011  |  December 12, 2011

“The FDA finds itself in the middle,” says Dr. Mac­Kenzie. “We, as a society, want to be sure systems exist to protect the patients. Yet, we also want assurances that the evolution of technology is not inhibited to the point it thwarts innovation and stops the public from enjoying its benefits.”

He says the FDA is hunting for the proper equilibrium where devices not ready for human use are put on the market—but that you also don’t put up barriers to the good things, either. “If anything comes out of the IOM report, other than raising the problems of the clearance process to the attention of the public, it is the recommendation that postmarket surveillance is the key to managing the public health question of safety and efficacy,” says Dr. Challoner.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Still Confident Overall

All three physicians are unanimous in saying that, for the most part, medical devices can be recommended by rheumatologists with confidence.

“The committee said that we don’t think that there is a public health emergency,” says Dr. Challoner. “This is mainly because the noise level coming back from the patient and practitioner, except for isolated incidents, doesn’t indicate one.” He does stress that there is still a nagging concern that “the 510(k) Emperor has no safety and efficacy clothes.” In the long run, he doesn’t think this can be good for public health and might lead to low-incidence but high-impact complications.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Dr. Kraay agrees in principle but does have an added caveat: It may not always be necessary, or even advisable, to go with newest alternative. “Devices in use for a reasonable period of time and that have a good track record for performance are frequently safer than the latest alternative released to the marketplace,” he says. “Both patients and users need to understand that new is not always better.”

Dr. MacKenzie sums it up this way: “I don’t think that the recent problems with medical devices that have risen recently in respect to medical devices assault the fundamental and well-established value of the treatments in general. Very thoughtful people on all sides of the issue are now giving it careful consideration, and I take comfort in that.”

Kurt Ullman is a freelance journalist based in Indiana.

References

  1. Porucznik MA, Kennedy J. The 510(k) pathway: Changes may be coming. AAOS Now. www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec09/reimbursement2.asp. Published December 2009. Accessed October 18, 2011.
  2. Challoner DR, Vodra WW. Medical devices and health—creating a new regulatory framework for moderate-risk devices. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:977-979.
  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 US. 470.
  4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA to seek public comment on IOM recommendations. www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm265908.htm. Published July 29, 2011. Accessed October 18, 2011.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Practice SupportQuality Assurance/Improvement Tagged with:FDAmedical deviceRegulationrheumatologistSafety

Related Articles

    Cobalt Toxicity Complication of Hip Replacement Surgery

    September 1, 2014

    Rheumalogists urged to recognize toxicity symptoms in patients with metal-on-metal or metal-on-polyethylene hip implants

    High-Risk Medical Devices Backed by Few Studies

    August 12, 2015

    (Reuters Health)—Many high-risk therapeutic devices get U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval with only one study proving their safety and efficacy before going to market. Studies of how the devices work once they are on the market are also few and far between, according to a new study that looked at all 28 high-risk…

    Institute of Medicine Recommends Changes in Graduate Medical Education

    June 15, 2015

    Questions, concerns and spirited debate have surrounded the Graduate Medical Education (GME) system for decades. The program that trains nearly 120,000 physicians per year is under constant scrutiny.1 Changes to the political landscape, combined with ongoing efforts by health industry payers and regulators to squeeze inefficiency out of the system, have kept the GME in…

    Many Medical Devices Hit the Market before Safety Studies Are Published

    June 5, 2016

    (Reuters Health)—Medical devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are often cleared before studies on their safety or effectiveness have been released to the public, a report suggests. Without published data, doctors and patients may not be able to make informed decisions about whether to use the products, the authors warn. ad…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences