Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 1/2014

Open Access 01.12.2014 | Research article

Contrasting clinical evidence for market authorisation of cardio-vascular devices in Europe and the USA: a systematic analysis of 10 devices based on Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments

verfasst von: Claudia Wild, Judit Erdös, Ingrid Zechmeister

Erschienen in: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders | Ausgabe 1/2014

Abstract

Background

European medical device regulation is under scrutiny and will be re-regulated with stricter rules concerning requirements for clinical evidence for high-risk medical devices. It is the aim of this study to analyse the differences between Europe and USA in dealing with risks and benefits of new cardio-vascular devices.

Methods

Since no information is available on clinical data used by the Notified Body for CE-marking, data from Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments close to European market approval were used as proxy and compared with clinical data available at time of market approval by FDA in the USA.

Results

10 cardio-vascular interventions with 27 newly CE approved medical devices were analysed. The time lag between market authorisation in Europe and in the USA is 3 to 7 years. Only 7 CE-marked devices also hold a FDA market approval, 7 further devices are in FDA approved ongoing efficacy trials. For 4 of the CE-marked devices the FDA market application or the approval-trial was either suspended due to efficacy or safety concerns or the approval was denied. Evidence available at time of CE-marking are most often case-series or small feasibility RCTs, while large RCTs and only in rare cases prospective cohort studies are the basis of FDA approvals. Additionally, the FDA often requires post-approval studies for high-risk devices.

Conclusions

Market authorisation based on mature clinical data deriving from larger RCTs and longer follow-ups do not only change the perspective on the risk-benefit ratio, but also secures real patient benefit and safety and assures payers of investing only in truly innovative devices.
Hinweise

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

Each author has contributed to the manuscript. CW has contributed with conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data and writing of the paper. IZ has contributed with controlling and interpretation of the data, and commenting on draft paper. JE has contributed with collecting data and with structuring them systematically. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Abkürzungen
AF
Atrial fibrillation
CE
Conformité Européenne
CT
Controlled trials
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
HDE
Humanitarian device exemption
IDE
Investigational device exemption
LBI-HTA
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for HTA
MA
Meta-analysis
MoH
Ministry of health
NANDO
New approach notified and designated organisations
PAD
Peripheral arterial disease
PMA
Premarket approval
PTA
Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty
RCT
Randomized clinical trial
SR
Systematic review
USA
United States of America.

Background

Because of several market withdrawals due to unsafe or ineffective devices, European medical device regulation is under scrutiny and will be re-regulated with stricter rules concerning requirements for clinical evidence for class III (active) and class IIb (inactive) implantable medical devices [1]. The criticism from health care providers [2, 3] as well as from pre-coverage health technology assessors (HTA) and payers [46], but also from patient groups [5] is nurtured by the fact that unsafe devices reach the European markets with pre-mature clinical data. Re-regulation details are still under debate: It has been suggested to reduce the number of European market authorisation agencies (“Notified Bodies/NB”) from the current 75 to a few certified ones to approve highly specialised devices or to even go for complete centralisation, as is the case with drugs. Another suggestion is to transparently document the approval process, the evidence requirements and the provided clinical data [7].
It is well known that new medical devices, including all high-risk cardio-vascular devices, receive the European market approval (CE/ Conformité Européenne mark) several years prior to USA market authorisation [2]. Due to the lack of transparency where the devices are approved and what the decentralised NBs receive as application information, the actual clinical evidence can only be speculated via clinical studies published after the CE mark was issued.
Still, because of pressure from physician groups wishing to offer patients early access to innovative medicine and from manufacturers wishing early market expansion, applications for coverage of those newly CE marked devices are submitted to reimbursement institutions only several months later [8]. In a recent analysis of seven devices from all medical disciplines, it could be shown that Austria is among the first countries where applications for uptake and inclusion into the benefit catalogue are put forward [8]. Since 2008, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for HTA (LBI-HTA) has been commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Health (MoH) to assess new hospital interventions, whereby new high-risk cardio-vascular implantable devices have accounted for one-third of all primary assessments.
The aim of this study is to analyse what evidence was available for cardio-vascular devices at the time of CE marking using the evidence presented in the Austrian assessments as a proxy, and to compare this data with the data available at the time of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval. Thereby, we intend to challenge the argument that earlier provision of new devices is always of benefit to the patient.

Methods

Since no information is available on clinical data used by the NB for CE marking and because the Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments are rather close to CE marking, we assumed that the clinical evidence – provided by the manufacturer – used for CE mark could be considered a subset of the one used for the assessments produced for deciding on including the interventions in the hospital benefit catalogue. For this study we assumed the evidence is the same. Out of all pre-reimbursement assessments we selected those that dealt with cardio-vascular interventions. Since the intention of the analysis was to concentrate on the level of evidence of new medical devices, we excluded those assessments that dealt with a) interventions where no new (defined by us as max. 3–5 years prior to assessment) CE marked products were available at the time of assessment, b) expansion of established indications (new interventions) with already existing products, and c) cerebro-vascular interventions.
From the included assessments (published between 2006 and 2014) we extracted information on a) intervention, b) devices, c) indication and d) best available evidence in terms of number and types of studies and number of study participants. Furthermore, we searched for publicly available online information on CE marking (spring 2014) and, in cases of missing information, contacted the manufacturers directly, rather than consulting the NANDO (New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations) Database.
In the USA, new high-risk devices typically undergo a premarket approval (PMA) process based on an efficacy trial [9]. Devices can receive an IDE status (investigational device exemption) that allows the device to be used in clinical approval trials [10]. Moreover, by defining so-called HDE conditions (humanitarian device exemption), it is intended that patients with a disease manifested in fewer than 4,000 individuals benefit from a device [11]. To obtain information on the time of FDA approval and on available evidence at the time of approval, we searched for PMA, IDE, and HDE documents related to the selected interventions and devices (June to July 2014). Again, data on clinical evidence for PMA decisions and trial information were extracted.
Next, we assigned the levels of clinical evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine hierarchy: 1: SR (systematic review) or MA (meta-analysis) based on several high quality RCTs (randomized clinical trials); 2: at least 1 RCT of high quality; 3: CTs (controlled trials) without randomisation; 4: prospective case–control and cohort studies; 5: case reports and retrospective case series [12].
Finally, we compared the market authorisation status and the level of evidence available around the time of market authorisation between Europe and the USA. Moreover, we analysed in more detail the differences between Europe and the USA in dealing with clinical evidence and with risk-benefit evaluations.

Results

Between 2008 and 2014, 15 (out of 48) pre-reimbursement assessments dealt with cardio-vascular interventions. From those, assessments on 10 cardio-vascular interventions were finally included into the analysis according to the pre-defined criteria (Table 1).
Table 1
Cardio-vascular interventions and medical devices, years of approval in Europe and in the USA, year of reimbursement-application in Austria (2008–2014)
Intervention
Product/manufacturer
Indication
Year of CE mark by NB/notified body
Year of reimbursement application
Year of FDA approval
Time between EU and USA approval
1. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation for right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction in patients with congenital heart defects
Melody™/Medtronic
Patients born with a dysfunctional conduit of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT)
2006
2008
2010
4 years
Jan: HDE Melody™
2. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement/TAVI
Edwards SAPIEN XT™/Edwards Lifesciences
Inoperable or high-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis
2010
2008
2014
4 years
2011
Updates: 2009, 2010, 2011
Jan: PMA
3 years
CoreValve®
CoreValve®/Medtronic
June: PMA
Edwards SAPIEN XT™
3. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) for heart failure
Optimizer™ III/Impulse Dynamics
Patients with symptomatic heart failure, NYHA Stadium ≥ II and normal QRC complex in ECG
2007
2008
No PMA
-
Updates: 2009, 2010
4. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of periphery arteries with drug-eluting balloon (DEB)
In.Pact™ Amphirion + Admiral/Medtronic
Patients with peripheral artery diseases, including extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease, upper extremity artery disease, mesenteric artery disease, renal artery disease as well as lower extremity artery disease
In.Pact™: 2009
2013
2014
5 years
Lutonix DCB™:2011
July: Lutonix DCB™
Lutonix DCB™/Bard-Lutonix
Cotavance™: 2011
Cotavance™/Bayer Schering
Advance PTX®: 2011
LEGflow™: 2011/2012
Advance 18 PTX®/Cook Medical
LEGflow™/Cardionovum
ELUTAX SV™/Aachen Resonance
Elutax SV™: 2013
Freeway™: year not disclosed
Freeway™/Eurocor
5. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with drug-eluting balloon (DEB)
Dior® PCB/Eurocor
SeQuent® Please DCB/Braun Melsungen AG
Patients with coronary artery diseases with in-stent-restenosis (ISR), ostium stenosis, stenosis of small coronary vessel disease (SVD) and de-novo lesion of coronary vessels
Dior® PCB: 2007
2009
No PMA
-
SeQuent® Please DCB: 2009
Update: 2013
In.Pact™ Admiral: 2009
In.Pact™ Admiral/Medtronic
Cotavance™/Bayer Schering
Cotavance™: 2011
6. Percutaneous repair of mitral regurgitation with the MitraClip
MitraClip®/Abbott
Patients with moderately severe or severe mitral regurgitation (grade 3+ or 4+); both operable and inoperable patients
2008
2010
2013
5 years
Update: 2012
March: PMA
MitraClip®/Abbott
7. Renal Denervation
Symplicity™ RDN/Medtronic
Patients with therapy resistant hypertonia after unsuccessful treatment (no blood pressure decrease) with at least 3 antihypertensive medicaments
2008
2011
No PMA
-
Update: 2012
8. Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms
Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft/Cook Medical
Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and/or iliacal aneurysm having morphology suitable for endovascular repair
Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft: 2005
2013
2012
7 years
Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft
Ventana™ Fenestrated System/Endologix
Ventana™ Fenestrated System: 2013
9. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with drug-eluting stents in peripheral arterial disease, upper limb and thorax
Femoropopliteal:
CYPHER® Select/Cordis
Patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) on arteria femoralis superficialis/SFA, below the knee/BTK, visceral arteria, iliacalarteria, upper extremities
CYPHER® Select: 2005 Zilver® PTX®: 2009
2014
2012
3 years
Zilver® PTX®
-
-
-
Zilver® PTX®/Cook Medical
 
Innova™: 2012
Innova™/Boston Scientific
S.M.A.R.T.®: 2013 XIENCE Prime BTK: 2011
S.M.A.R.T.®/Cordis
Infrapopliteal:
Yukon®: 2011
PROMUS Element™ Plus
XIENCE® Prime BTK/Abbott
DES BTK: 2012
Yukon®/Translumina
PROMUS Element™Plus
DES BTK/Boston Scientific
10. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation
Watchman® LAA Closure Technology/Atritech-Boston Scientific
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter/cardiac arrhythmia/abnormal heart rhythm to prevent thromboembolic events such as ischaemic stroke
Watchman® LAA: 2005, 2012 (extended use)
2011
No PMA
-
-
-
Update: 2014
AMPLATZER™ Cardiac Plug/St. Jude Medical
AMPLATZERTM
Cardiac Plug: 2008
WaveCrest™: 2013
Coherex WaveCrest™ LAA Occlusion System/Coherex Medical

Market authorisation granted

For the 10 cardio-vascular interventions analysed, 27 newly approved CE marked medical devices were available (see details in Table 2). Of those, only 6 devices also hold a PMA status, 1 holds the HDE status, while 7 medical devices are under IDE. For 4 of the devices, the application in the USA was either suspended due to efficacy or safety concerns before/during/after the IDE trials (Cotovance™, Ventana™, Symplicity™), or market authorisation was denied (Watchman®) due to safety concerns. 12 CE marked cardio-vascular devices are neither PMA-approved, nor hold an IDE status (yet), meaning that they are produced solely for the European market or the IDE will be applied for at a later stage. For 1 device (CYPHER® Select), marketing was discontinued in Europe.
Table 2
Evidence available at time of pre-reimbursement assessment in Austria and at time of FDA approval, levels of evidence
Intervention
Product
Highest level of evidence at time of pre-reimbursement assessment (Austria)
LoE
Highest level of evidence: FDA application/approval (USA)
LoE
1. Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation for right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction in patients with congenital heart defects
Melody™
NB 2006
 
FDA 2010
4
2008 [14]: 4 retrospective + prospective case series, 8–68 pts
5
HDE approval based on 1 prospective case series 99 pts, requirement of 2 post-approval studies with 5y FU [13]
2. Percutaneous aortic valve replacement/ TAVI
CoreValve®
2007
 
FDA 2014
2
SAPIEN XT™
2008 [16]: retrospective + prospective 10 case series, 8–86 pts
5
CoreValve® PMA approval based on 1 RCT, 656 pts [15] (CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial), requirement for post-approval study on extreme risk patients.
2009 [18]: see 2008 + 4 case series, 12–646 pts 2010 [19]: see 2008 + 2009 + 6 cohort studies (registries), 4 HTAs
4
4
SAPIEN XT™ PMA approval based on 1 RCT, 560 pts [17] (PARTNER II), requirement for post-approval study on inoperable patients cohort
2
2
2011 [20]: see 2008 + 2009 + 2010 + 1 RCT, 358 pts (PARTNER I)
3. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) for heart failure
Optimizer™ III/IV
NB 2007
 
-
-
2008 [21]: 2 RCTs, 49/164 pts (FIX-HF-4/ OPTIMIZER) +2 case series 13/25 pts)
2
IDE Status: Optimizer™ III Optimizer™ III/IV Trial FIX-HF-5 (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER®) ongoing
2009 [22]: see 2008 + 1 RCT-Protokoll, 428 pts (FIX-HF-5/ OPTIMIZER)
2
2010 [23]: see 2009
2
4. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) of periphery arteries with drug-eluting balloon (DEB)
In.Pact™ Amphirion + Admiral
NB 2009/11/12/13
 
FDA 2014
1 + 3
2013 [25]: 4 RCTs, 50–102 pts(2 × In.Pact™ DEBELLUM, PACIFIER, 2 × Cotovance™ THUNDER, FemPac) +2 cohort studies (registries: In.Pact™ Admiral, In.Pact™ Amphirion)
1-2
Lutonix DCB® PMA based on LEVANT 2 RCT, 476 pts + LEVANT 2 registry, 657 pts. [24]
Lutonix DCB®
Cotavance™
Advance 18 PTX®
IDE Status: In.Pact™ Admiral based on SFA I and SFA II RCT, 331 pts
LEGflow™
No IDE Status: Cotavance™ (IDE suspended), Advance 18 PTX (only EU), LEGflow™ (RAPID trial EU),Freeway™ (only EU)
ELUTAX SV™
Freeway™
5. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with drug-eluting balloon (DEB)
Dior® PCBr
NB 2007/09/11
 
-
-
SeQuent® DCB In.Pact™ Admiral
2009 [26]: 2 RCTs, 52/108 pts (2x Cotavance™ PACCOCATH I, II)
1-2
IDE Status: In.Pact™ Admiral/ Medtronic based on SFA I and SFA II RCT, 331 pts
Cotavance™
2013 [27]: 5 RCTs for ISR, 50–271 pts (4 × SeQuent® PEPCAD II-IV + 1 × Cotavance™ PACCOCATH II FU) +1 RCT for SVD, 60 pts (Dior® PICCOLETO) +1 RCT for de-novo lesions, 84 pts (SeQuent®)
1-2
No IDE Status :Dior® PCB (only EU), SeQuent® DCB: (only EU), Cotavance™ (IDE suspended)
6. Percutaneous repair of mitral regurgitation with the MitraClip
MitraClip®/Abbott
NB 2008
4
FDA 2013
 
2010 [28]: prospective case series (EVEREST I/II), 107 pts 2012 [30]: 2010 + 10 case series +1 RCT, 279 pts (EVEREST II)
2
MitraClip® PMA approval based on EVEREST II RCT, 279 pts., EVEREST II high-risk registry (EVEREST II HRR), 78 pts and EVEREST II Cont. access registry (REALISM HR), 853 pts [29], requirement of 2 post-approval studies (registries)
2 + 3
7. Renal denervation
Symplicity™ RDN/Medtronic
NB 2008
 
-
-
2011 [31]: 1 prospective case series (SYMPLICITY HTN-1), 50 pts; 1 RCT, 106 pts. (SYMPLICITY HTN-2)
4, 2
IDE Status: IDE approval study SYMPLICITY HTN-3, 535 pts. failed; 2014 approval process suspended [32], IDE approval study SYMPLICITY HTN-4 ongoing
4, 2
2012 [33]: 2011+ 1 case series, 153 pts. (FU SYMPLICITY HTN-1)
8. Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms
Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft
NB 2005/13
 
FDA 2012
4
2013 [34]: 2 HTAs +4 SR based on 1 (non-randomised) controlled study, 187 pts +7-20 case series, 196–368 pts
3
Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft PMA approval based on 1 (historic case-) controlled study, 42 pts [35], requirement of a long-term follow-up study.
Ventana™ Fenestrated System
IDE Status: Ventana™ Fenestrated System
9. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with drug-eluting stents in peripheral arterial disease, upper limb and thorax
Femoropopliteal:
NB 2009/ 12/13
1 + 2
1 + 2
FDA 2012 Zilver® PTX® PMA approval based on Zilver PTX randomised study, 479 pts. [37]
2
Zilver® PTX® Innova™
2014 [36]: Femoropopliteal
S.M.A.R.T.®
3 RCTs, 36–479 pts (1 × Zilver® PTX study, 2 × S.M.A.R.T.® SCIROCCO I + II) +1 non-randomised CTs, 93 pts (Zilver®) +1 case series, 787 pts.
IDE Status: S.M.A.R.T.® Vascular Stent System No IDE Status: Innova™ Peripheral Vascular DES System (MAJESTIC in Australia, New Zealand, EU); XIENCE® Prime BTK;
Infrapopliteal:
XIENCE® Prime BTK
Infrapopliteal
Yukon®; PROMUS Element™PlusDES BTK; CYPHER® Select (discontinued to be marketed)
Yukon®
4 RCTs, 50–200 pts (1 × XIENCE® DESTINY, 1 × Yukon® YUKON-BTK, 2× CYPHER® ACHILLES) +3 non-randomised CTs, 58–103 pts +3 case series, 114–146 pts (all CYPHER® Select)
PROMUS Element™PlusDES BTK
CYPHER® Select
10. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation
Watchman® LAA Closure Technology
NB 2005/08/12/13
4 + 5
-
-
2011 [38]: 4 case series, 64–180 pts; 1 cohort study/ registry, 73 pts; 1 RCT, 542 pts (Watchman® PROTECT AF)
2009: Watchman® LAA Closure Technology PMA approval based on RCT, 707 pts (PROTECT AF) declined[39]
AMPLATZER™ Cardiac Plug
3 + 2
Coherex WaveCrest™ LAA Occlusion System
2014 [40]: 2011 + 3 FU studies of PROTECT AF +
IDE Status: Watchman® LAA Closure, re-application with RCT PREVAIL, 407 pts; AMPLATZER™ Cardiac Plug (RESPECT), 980 pts
3 case series, 52–86 pts +1 cohort study/ registry, n/a; 2 prospective CTs, 80/150 pts
Legend: pts.: patients; NB: notified bodies; RCT: randomised controlled trial; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; IDE: investigational device exemption; PMA: premarket approval; HDE: humanitarian device exemption.

Time lag in market authorisation

For those 7 (6: PMA; 1: HDE) cardio-devices holding European and US licences, the time lag between market authorisation in Europe and in the USA amounted to 3 to 7 years.

Levels of evidence

The applications for coverage of new interventions and devices in cardio-vascular pathologies were submitted between 1 to 3 years after CE marking. In most of the 10 analysed interventions, the evidence available at the time of pre-reimbursement assessment was either level 4–5 (retrospective, sometimes prospective case series without control groups) or 2 (small RCTs/feasibility studies for individual devices/1st generation). Non-randomised controlled studies (level 3) or prospectively planned registries (level 4) were seldom available. On the contrary, IDE-accepted RCTs (level 2) or – in some rare medical conditions – prospective case series or cohort studies (level 3 and 4) were the basis for FDA approval decisions in most cases (Table 2).
A detailed analysis of the efficacy and safety assessments of individual devices seems to be more informative than the levels of evidence per se. Several differences in dealing with the evidence on benefit-risk ratios could be identified and the following patterns have appeared:
1.
Requirement of extensive follow-up for high-risk devices: Melody™ was CE marked in 2006 and has held an HDE approval since 2010. An HDE application is not required to contain the final results of scientifically valid clinical investigations, but must contain sufficient information to determine that the device does not pose an unreasonable or significant risk and that the probable benefit to health outweighs the risks [13]. Therefore, two additional post-approval studies (150 patients, follow-up of 5 years and 100 new patients with primary analysis performed at 6 months) are required by the FDA for Melody™ [41]; these studies are ongoing. No such requirements exist in Europe, since registries are voluntary. Edwards SAPIEN XT™ and CoreValve® received a CE mark in 2010 and 2011, and a PMA in 2014. The latter is based on RCTs with 560 (SAPIEN XT™) and 656 patients (CoreValve®) respectively. This type of clinical data was not available at the time of European market authorisation. Follow-up data from post-approval studies on inoperable and extreme risk patients is required by the FDA for both devices. No such requirements were defined at the time of EU market authorisation.
 
2.
Early approval in Europe and later demonstration of inefficacy in RCT: Symplicity™ received CE marking in 2008 based on a safety study (SYMPLICITY HTN-1). In 2014, the FDA approval study (SYMPLICITY HTN-3) failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint [42]. As a consequence, the manufacturer is considering a suspension of enrolment in the already ongoing SYMPLICITY HTN-4 (IDE) trial.
 
3.
Early approvals in Europe and safety concerns in the USA: Three different devices were approved for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation in Europe between 2005 and 2013; none of them holds a PMA status. WATCHMAN® LAA Closure Technology was denied PMA in 2009 due to safety concerns. The FDA Circulatory System Devices Panel concluded (7 in favour, 5 opposed) that although short-term efficacy had been demonstrated by the data available from the PROTECT AF trial, longer term efficacy had not been adequately demonstrated due to the lack of available long-term data [39]. In late 2013, the PREVAIL data was presented; a PMA decision is pending [43].
 
4.
Devices of unknown value: Optimizer received the CE mark in 2007 based on a feasibility trial (showing no improvement in primary endpoints [2123] and proceeded on to the IDE-approved FIX-HF-5 trial that has been running since 2011. Results are to be expected in 2015.
For PTA (percutaneous transluminal angioplasty) of peripheral arteries with drug- eluting balloon (DEB), 6 devices received the CE mark between 2009 and 2013. Only one of these (Lutonix DCB™) also received PMA in 2014; another (In.Pact™ Admiral IDE) is expected to be approved by the FDA in 2015 or later. One of the DEBs, Cotavance™, is CE marked for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), as well as stenotic lesions in the iliac and infrainguinal arteries, but the IDE application was suspended in 2012 due to problems concerning drug adhesion to the balloon and the according safety concerns [44].
 
5.
Devices of critical risk-benefit-ratio: MitraClip® received CE marking in 2008 on the basis of case series (EVEREST I); PMA followed in 2013. Although an RCT (EVEREST II), a prospectively planned registry (EVEREST II HRR) and a “Real World Expanded Multi-center Study” (REALISM HR) were submitted, FDA approval was cautious, with 5 votes to 3 on whether the benefits outweigh the risks and 4 votes to 5 on whether there is a reasonable assurance of efficacy.
 
Two devices for the endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms received CE marking in 2005 and 2013. Only one is also approved in the USA (2012); the other (Ventana™) holds an IDE, but the trial was suspended and enrolment was stopped because of a higher than expected number of re-interventions [45].

Discussion

Recent publications showed that cardiovascular devices receiving PMA (between 2000 and 2007) are often (63%) based on non-randomised studies that lack adequate strength and may be prone to bias [46], that effectiveness endpoints are more often reported than safety endpoints, and that patient comorbidities are only incompletely reported [47]. Recalls are not uncommon, especially for those devices that have been cleared via the “substantial equivalence” process [48]. The US watchdog institution Public Citizen called medical devices in the USA “substantially unsafe” [49]. In contrast, the European debate is being led – with the exemption of the detailed analysis in [2] – on a much more general level. There is only a general demand for stricter regulation, since no data are available for analysis and there is a lack of transparency concerning which NB gave market authorisation on the basis of what type of clinical evidence.
Because of the earlier market authorisation and the lack of requirements other than the performance evaluation of medical devices in Europe (the lack of a definition of “performance” is resulting in totally different interpretations), the clinical evidence available at the time of pre-reimbursement assessments is naturally lower than some years later for market authorisation in the USA [5, 50, 51]. Several unsafe and ineffective devices are approved in the EU, but not in the USA [52]. The perspective of manufacturers (and of some clinical experts) that early market access provides highly innovative medicine to suffering patients [53] is held against the perspective that little is known on the effectiveness and on the risk-benefit ratio at the time of European market authorisation. Patients are put at risk and health care systems are put under pressure to invest in interventions of unknown value [6]. Since some cardio-vascular devices are seemingly intended for the non-US market only, the uncertainty on their benefits and potential harms may never be resolved.
Based on our experiences from 7 years of pre-reimbursement assessments [54], our study contributes to the existing knowledge that not only earlier approvals are based on limited data, but that more mature data deriving from larger randomised trials and longer follow-ups might also change the perspective on the risk-benefit ratio entirely. The two most obvious examples of devices that have been considered for market approval on both continents and where different conclusions were drawn are Symplicity™ and Watchman ® . Others are less visible, but still there: For Optimizer™ (CE marked in 2007), no convincing evidence on efficacy has been demonstrated so far. In the case of Cotavance™ (CE marked in 2011), steps towards FDA approval were suspended due to problems concerning drug adhesion to the balloon. For Ventana™ (CE marked 2013), enrolment into a trial was stopped because of a higher than expected number of re-interventions. There may even be more examples we are not aware of. Further general deficiencies are well described by Fraser et al. [2].
This study has shortcomings: The biggest limitation is the fact that no data on the clinical evidence for the CE marking are available; we therefore had to rely on the information on available clinical studies derived from the Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments. Nevertheless, we think it is plausible that less rather than more clinical data were available at an earlier stage, though probably not all published. Additionally, only the devices for specific indications mentioned in the pre-reimbursement applications were assessed, meaning that other cardio-devices posing problems after CE marking such as ProRhytm® and HD Mesh Ablator® for the treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) were not included in this analysis.

Conclusions

Our conclusions are that good clinical evidence at the time of market authorisation not only secures real patient benefit and safety, but also assures payers of investing only in truly innovative devices. In addition, good clinical evidence might ease market access for manufacturers and make coverage in (hospital) benefit catalogues more predictable. There is a strong need for stricter device regulation in Europe and compulsory, long-term follow-up in order not to expose European patients to (often) premature experimental devices.

Authors’ information

CW/Claudia Wild is director of the LBI-HTA and trained in communications and social medicine; IZ/Ingrid Zechmeister is deputy director of the LBI-HTA and trained in health economics; JE/Judit Erdos is research assistant at LBI-HTA and trained in International Health Care Management.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

Each author has contributed to the manuscript. CW has contributed with conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data and writing of the paper. IZ has contributed with controlling and interpretation of the data, and commenting on draft paper. JE has contributed with collecting data and with structuring them systematically. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Fraser AG, Daubert JC, Van de Werf F, Estes NAM, Smith SC, Krucoff MW, Vardas PE, Komajda M: Clinical evaluation of cardiovascular devices: principles, problems, and proposals for European regulatory reform. Report of a policy conference of the European society of cardiology. Cardiol Eur Heart J. 2011, 32 (13): 1673-1686D. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr171.CrossRef Fraser AG, Daubert JC, Van de Werf F, Estes NAM, Smith SC, Krucoff MW, Vardas PE, Komajda M: Clinical evaluation of cardiovascular devices: principles, problems, and proposals for European regulatory reform. Report of a policy conference of the European society of cardiology. Cardiol Eur Heart J. 2011, 32 (13): 1673-1686D. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr171.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen D, Billingsley M: Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ. 2011, 342: d2748-10.1136/bmj.d2748.CrossRefPubMed Cohen D, Billingsley M: Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ. 2011, 342: d2748-10.1136/bmj.d2748.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Vinck I, Stordeur S, Huic M, Sauerland S, Kuijpers MR, Abrishami P, Vondeling H, Flamion B, Garattini S, Pavlovic M, Van Brabandt H: Pre-market clinical evaluations of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe. Int J TAHC. 2012, 28 (3): 278-284. Hulstaert F, Neyt M, Vinck I, Stordeur S, Huic M, Sauerland S, Kuijpers MR, Abrishami P, Vondeling H, Flamion B, Garattini S, Pavlovic M, Van Brabandt H: Pre-market clinical evaluations of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe. Int J TAHC. 2012, 28 (3): 278-284.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen D: Patient groups accuse European parliament of putting economic interests ahead of safety on medical devices. BMJ. 2013, 347: f6446-10.1136/bmj.f6446.CrossRefPubMed Cohen D: Patient groups accuse European parliament of putting economic interests ahead of safety on medical devices. BMJ. 2013, 347: f6446-10.1136/bmj.f6446.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Storz-Pfenning P, Schmedders M, Dettloff M: Trials are needed before new devices are used in routine practice in Europe. BMJ. 2013, 346: f1646-10.1136/bmj.f1646. Epub 18 March 2013CrossRef Storz-Pfenning P, Schmedders M, Dettloff M: Trials are needed before new devices are used in routine practice in Europe. BMJ. 2013, 346: f1646-10.1136/bmj.f1646. Epub 18 March 2013CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Eikermann M, Gluud C, Perleth M, Wild C, Sauerland S, Guitarrez-Ibarluzea I, Antoine S, Demotes-Mainard J, Neugebauer EAM: Commentary: Europe needs a central, transparent, and evidence based regulation process for devices. BMJ. 2013, 346: f2771-10.1136/bmj.f2771. Epub 7 May 2013CrossRefPubMed Eikermann M, Gluud C, Perleth M, Wild C, Sauerland S, Guitarrez-Ibarluzea I, Antoine S, Demotes-Mainard J, Neugebauer EAM: Commentary: Europe needs a central, transparent, and evidence based regulation process for devices. BMJ. 2013, 346: f2771-10.1136/bmj.f2771. Epub 7 May 2013CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Mad P, Falkner E, Guba B, Gartlehner G: Perkutan Implantierbare Pulmonalklappen bei angeborenen Herzfehlern des rechtsventrikulären Ausflusstraktes. 2008, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, 10 Mad P, Falkner E, Guba B, Gartlehner G: Perkutan Implantierbare Pulmonalklappen bei angeborenen Herzfehlern des rechtsventrikulären Ausflusstraktes. 2008, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, 10
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Wild C, Langley T, Guba B, Gartlehner G: Minimal-Invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz. 2008, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Wild C, Langley T, Guba B, Gartlehner G: Minimal-Invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz. 2008, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Wild C, Geiger-Gritsch S, Mittermayr T: Minimal-invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment. 2009, (18)/1.Update Wild C, Geiger-Gritsch S, Mittermayr T: Minimal-invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment. 2009, (18)/1.Update
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wild C: Minimal-Invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz. 2010, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Wild C: Minimal-Invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz. 2010, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Gottardi R, Wild C: Minimal-invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz (mit Exkurs zu Hybrid-OPs). 2011, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Gottardi R, Wild C: Minimal-invasiver Perkutaner Aortenklappenersatz (mit Exkurs zu Hybrid-OPs). 2011, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P, Guba B, Felder-Puig R: Kardiale Kontraktilitätsmodulation bei medikamentös Therapierefraktärer Herzinsuffizienz. 2008, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P, Guba B, Felder-Puig R: Kardiale Kontraktilitätsmodulation bei medikamentös Therapierefraktärer Herzinsuffizienz. 2008, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P, Geiger-Gritsch S, Mittermayr T: Kardiale Kontraktilitätsmodulation bei medikamentös Therapierefraktärer Herzinsuffizienz. 2009, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P, Geiger-Gritsch S, Mittermayr T: Kardiale Kontraktilitätsmodulation bei medikamentös Therapierefraktärer Herzinsuffizienz. 2009, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P: Kardiale Kontraktilitätsmodulation bei Patientinnen mit schwerer Herzinsuffizienz. 2010, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P: Kardiale Kontraktilitätsmodulation bei Patientinnen mit schwerer Herzinsuffizienz. 2010, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Warmuth M, Stumpner T: Perkutane Transluminale Angioplastie (PTA) Peripherer Arterien mit Drug-eluting Balloon (DEB). 2013, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Warmuth M, Stumpner T: Perkutane Transluminale Angioplastie (PTA) Peripherer Arterien mit Drug-eluting Balloon (DEB). 2013, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P, Reiner-Theisen I, Geiger-Gritsch S, Mittermayr T: Medikamentenbeschichteter Ballonkatheter. 2009, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Adlbrecht C, Radlberger P, Reiner-Theisen I, Geiger-Gritsch S, Mittermayr T: Medikamentenbeschichteter Ballonkatheter. 2009, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Hintringer K, Warmuth M: Perkutane Transluminale Koronare Angioplastie (PTCA) mit Drug-eluting Balloon (DEB). 2013, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Hintringer K, Warmuth M: Perkutane Transluminale Koronare Angioplastie (PTCA) mit Drug-eluting Balloon (DEB). 2013, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Janatzek S, Thomas S, Mad P: Perkutane Mitralklappenintervention mittels Mitralclip Bei Mitralklappeninsuffizienz. 2010, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Janatzek S, Thomas S, Mad P: Perkutane Mitralklappenintervention mittels Mitralclip Bei Mitralklappeninsuffizienz. 2010, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Nachtnebel A, Reinsperger I: Perkutane Mitralklappenintervention Mittels Mitralclip bei Mitralklappeninsuffizienz. 2012, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Nachtnebel A, Reinsperger I: Perkutane Mitralklappenintervention Mittels Mitralclip bei Mitralklappeninsuffizienz. 2012, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Wegman M, Thomas S, Deuber H: Perkutane Mitralklappenintervention Mittels Mitralclip bei Mitralklappeninsuffizienz. 2011, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Wegman M, Thomas S, Deuber H: Perkutane Mitralklappenintervention Mittels Mitralclip bei Mitralklappeninsuffizienz. 2011, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Medtronic: Medtronic Announces U.S. Renal Denervation Pivotal Trial Fails to Meet Primary Efficacy Endpoint While Meeting Primary Safety Endpoint. 2014, Press Release Medtronic: Medtronic Announces U.S. Renal Denervation Pivotal Trial Fails to Meet Primary Efficacy Endpoint While Meeting Primary Safety Endpoint. 2014, Press Release
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Reichel M, Zechmeister-Koss I: Perkutane Renale Denervation bei Therapieresistenter Hypertonie. 2012, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Reichel M, Zechmeister-Koss I: Perkutane Renale Denervation bei Therapieresistenter Hypertonie. 2012, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Warmuth M: Endovaskuläre Versorgung Komplexer Aortenaneurysmen mit gefensterten oder verzweigten Prothesen. 2013, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Warmuth M: Endovaskuläre Versorgung Komplexer Aortenaneurysmen mit gefensterten oder verzweigten Prothesen. 2013, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Zechmeister-Koss I, Fischer S: Medikamentenfreisetzende Stents bei peripherer arterieller Verschlusskrankheit. 2014, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Zechmeister-Koss I, Fischer S: Medikamentenfreisetzende Stents bei peripherer arterieller Verschlusskrankheit. 2014, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Warmuth M, Schumacher I: Perkutaner Verschluss des linken Vorhofohres zur Thrombembolieprophylaxe bei PatientInnen mit Vorhofflimmern. 2011, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Warmuth M, Schumacher I: Perkutaner Verschluss des linken Vorhofohres zur Thrombembolieprophylaxe bei PatientInnen mit Vorhofflimmern. 2011, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Reinsperger I, Nachtnebel A: Perkutaner Verschluss des linken Vorhofohres zur Thrombembolieprophylaxe bei PatientInnen mit Vorhofflimmern. 2014, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment Reinsperger I, Nachtnebel A: Perkutaner Verschluss des linken Vorhofohres zur Thrombembolieprophylaxe bei PatientInnen mit Vorhofflimmern. 2014, Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Armstrong AK, Balzer D, Cabalka A, Gray R, Javois A, Kreutzer J, Moore J, Rome J, Turner D, Zellers T: One Year Follow-up of the Melody ™ Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Multicenter Post-Approval Study. Presentation at American College of Cardiology/ Scientific Session. 2013, Washington, DC Armstrong AK, Balzer D, Cabalka A, Gray R, Javois A, Kreutzer J, Moore J, Rome J, Turner D, Zellers T: One Year Follow-up of the Melody ™ Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Multicenter Post-Approval Study. Presentation at American College of Cardiology/ Scientific Session. 2013, Washington, DC
44.
Zurück zum Zitat VascularNews: Is This A Setback For Drug-Eluting Balloons?. 2012 VascularNews: Is This A Setback For Drug-Eluting Balloons?. 2012
45.
Zurück zum Zitat VascularNews: Endologix Stops Enrolment in the Ventana IDE Trial. 2013 VascularNews: Endologix Stops Enrolment in the Ventana IDE Trial. 2013
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF: Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009, 302 (24): 2679-2685. 10.1001/jama.2009.1899.CrossRefPubMed Dhruva SS, Bero LA, Redberg RF: Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009, 302 (24): 2679-2685. 10.1001/jama.2009.1899.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Kramer DB, Mallis E, Zuckerman BD, Zimmerman BA, Maisel WH: Premarket clinical evaluation of novel cardiovascular devices: quality analysis of premarket clinical studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration 2000–2007. Am J Ther. 2010, 17 (1): 2-7. 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181ca8105.CrossRefPubMed Kramer DB, Mallis E, Zuckerman BD, Zimmerman BA, Maisel WH: Premarket clinical evaluation of novel cardiovascular devices: quality analysis of premarket clinical studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration 2000–2007. Am J Ther. 2010, 17 (1): 2-7. 10.1097/MJT.0b013e3181ca8105.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE: Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011, 171 (11): 1006-1011.PubMed Zuckerman DM, Brown P, Nissen SE: Medical device recalls and the FDA approval process. Arch Intern Med. 2011, 171 (11): 1006-1011.PubMed
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Basu S, Hassenpulg JC: Patient access to medical devices - a comparison of US and European review processes. NEJM. 2012, 367 (6): 485-488. 10.1056/NEJMp1204170.CrossRefPubMed Basu S, Hassenpulg JC: Patient access to medical devices - a comparison of US and European review processes. NEJM. 2012, 367 (6): 485-488. 10.1056/NEJMp1204170.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Huot L, Decullier E, Maes-Beny K, Chapuis FR: Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health - a descriptive study. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12 (585): Huot L, Decullier E, Maes-Beny K, Chapuis FR: Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health - a descriptive study. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12 (585):
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Mad P, Geiger-Gritsch S, Hinterreiter G, Mathis S, Wild C: Pre-coverage assessments of new hospital interventions in Austria: methodology and 3 years of experience. Int J TAHC. 2012, 28 (2): 171-179. Mad P, Geiger-Gritsch S, Hinterreiter G, Mathis S, Wild C: Pre-coverage assessments of new hospital interventions in Austria: methodology and 3 years of experience. Int J TAHC. 2012, 28 (2): 171-179.
Metadaten
Titel
Contrasting clinical evidence for market authorisation of cardio-vascular devices in Europe and the USA: a systematic analysis of 10 devices based on Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments
verfasst von
Claudia Wild
Judit Erdös
Ingrid Zechmeister
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2014
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders / Ausgabe 1/2014
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2261
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-14-154

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.