FDA Looking at Ways to Improve Medical Device Safety
Last week, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials held what the New York Times called a “rare” meeting to discuss the many controversies surrounding the agency's device safety record; medical attorneys think the meeting is past due.
The director of the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation, Dr. Donna-Bea Tillman, called for an “all hands meeting,” to include all scientists in the device evaluation section. Shockingly, a meeting like this has not been held at the FDA in years. Then again, when you consider the agency's medical device safety record, it really is not very surprising.
The meeting is the most recent in a series of developments surrounding the FDA's record in approving devices. At least 9 scientists this year wrote to Principal Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, alleging that approval procedures in the device section were being "severely distorted." The letter also alleged that scientists at the agency, who were raising their voice against such unethical practices, were facing retaliation by FDA higher-ups. The matter has been serious enough to warrant a Congressional investigation. Soon, the Institute of Medicine could also begin probing these serious concerns about the device section.
Things seem to be heating up at the medical device section of the FDA. Two things are apparent at this point:
- There are serious failures in the medical device division of the FDA.
- These problems are not going to be solved by mere patch-up work. Rather, the section needs a complete overhaul to root out unethical practices, and make approval processes corruption-proof.
Any changes that come about at the medical device division cannot be a day too soon.
Defective Medical Devices
It is the FDA's responsibility to protect American consumers from dangerous medical devices. If they fall down on the job and let corrupt individuals get in the way of important safety evaluations, we are all at risk.
If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective medical device, a medical injury attorney can help you recover physically, emotionally, and financially.
Contact a medical injury lawyer, at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation and to find the answers to any questions you might have.
FDA critics have long argued that the agency is overworked and simply unable to monitor the safety of the vast amounts of pharmaceutical drugs, medical products, and medical devices that come through its doors. The agency suffers from under staffing and a shortage of resources necessary to ensure drug safety. FDA officials, themselves, admit that the agency is unable to meet the changing demands of a globalized world, where pharmaceutical drugs are frequently sourced from foreign plants. In 2005, the FDA approved close to 3,200 applications for marketing of new medical devices. Yet, the agency has only a fraction of the scientist and researchers necessary to process so many applications. Because of this the FDA often has no other option, but to rely on the device makers themselves to disclose the risks of their products.
In recent years the FDA has battled several food safety crises. Every time there is a contaminated batch of peanut butter or pistachios, the agency is forced to turn its attention to food safety. It has become increasingly clear that we cannot continue to expect the agency, responsible for making sure tomatoes and peppers are free of pathogens, to also be responsible for monitoring the safety of 
It is not only ReGen Biologics Inc. and the safety, or lack of it, of Menaflex in question here. At the crux of the matter are the reliability and integrity of FDA approval processes. Email correspondence between staff members at the agency indicate that they removed certain lines from emails that could indicate ‘’special treatment for the device maker.’’ FDA critics are concerned about what they call the agency’s tendency to bow to device companies. The fast track process, in particular, has come under intense scrutiny. The process allows scientists to bypass clinical trials only when reviewing devices similar to existing ones. There is no explanation forthcoming about why Menaflex was approved under the fast track process considering it is the only device of its kind in the market. With the FDA behaving more like a corrupt government than the country's premier drug safety agency, it is fair to assume that 