Effects of congressional modernization laws on public access to innovative medical device technologies

The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) play key roles in making Class III, medical devices available to the public, and they are required by law to meet statutory deadlines for applications under review. Historically, both agencies have failed to meet their respective statutory requirements. Since these failures affect patient access and may adversely impact public health, Congress has enacted several “modernization” laws. However, the effectiveness of these modernization laws has not been adequately studied or established for Class III medical devices. ^ The aim of this research study was, therefore, to analyze how these modernization laws may have affected public access to medical devices. Two questions were addressed: (1) How have the FDA modernization laws affected the time to approval for medical device premarket approval applications (PMAs)? (2) How has the CMS modernization law affected the time to approval for national coverage decisions (NCDs)? The data for this research study were collected from publicly available databases for the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2008. These dates were selected to ensure that a sufficient period of time was captured to measure pre- and post-modernization effects on time to approval. All records containing original PMAs were obtained from the FDA database, and all records containing NCDs were obtained from the CMS database. Source documents, including FDA premarket approval letters and CMS national coverage decision memoranda, were reviewed to obtain additional data not found in the search results. Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of the pre- and post-modernization laws on time to approval. Secondary analyses of FDA subcategories were conducted to uncover any causal factors that might explain differences in time to approval and to compare with the primary trends. The primary analysis showed that the FDA modernization laws of 1997 and 2002 initially reduced PMA time to approval; after the 2002 modernization law, the time to approval began increasing and continued to increase through December 2008. The non-combined, subcategory approval trends were similar to the primary analysis trends. The combined, subcategory analysis showed no clear trends with the exception of non-implantable devices, for which time to approval trended down after 1997. The CMS modernization law of 2003 reduced NCD time to approval, a trend that continued through December 2008. This study also showed that approximately 86% of PMA devices do not receive NCDs. ^ As a result of this research study, recommendations are offered to help resolve statutory non-compliance and access issues, as follows: (1) Authorities should examine underlying causal factors for the observed trends; (2) Process improvements should be made to better coordinate FDA and CMS activities to include sharing data, reducing duplication, and establishing clear criteria for “safe and effective” and “reasonable and necessary”; (3) A common identifier should be established to allow tracking and trending of applications between FDA and CMS databases; (4) Statutory requirements may need to be revised; and (5) An investigation should be undertaken to determine why NCDs are not issued for the majority of PMAs. Any process improvements should be made without creating additional safety risks and adversely impacting public health. Finally, additional studies are needed to fully characterize and better understand the trends identified in this research study.^

Retrospective assesment of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device to treat complex atypical hyperplasia and early endometrioid endometrial cancer

Objective: The primary objective of this project was to describe the efficacy of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (LIUD) for treatment of Complex Endometrial Cancer (CAH) and Grade 1 Endometrial Cancer (G1EEC) in terms of rate of Complete Response (CR) and Partial Response (PR) after 6 months of therapy. Finally, we assessed if any clinical or pathologic features were associated with response to the LIUD. ^ Methods: This study was a retrospective case series designed to report the response rate of patients with CAH or G1EEC treated with LIUD therapy. In addition, this study has a laboratory component to assess molecular predictors of response to LIUD therapy. Retrospective data already collected from patients diagnosed with CAH or EEC grade 1 and treated with LIUD therapy at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) were used for this study. Patients from all ethnic and race groups were included. A Complete Response (CR) was defined in patients diagnosed with CAH if pathologic report at 6 months demonstrated either no evidence of hyperplasia or no atypia in the setting of simple or complex hyperplasia. Partial Response (PR) was recorded if disease downgraded to only CAH from G1EEC. No Response (NR) was recorded if pathologic report demonstrates no change (Stable Disease, SD) or progression to cancer (Progressive Disease, PD). We calculated the proportion of patients with complete response to LIUD therapy with 95% confidence interval. We compared the response rates (CR/PR vs NR) by obesity status (Obese if BMI > 40 kg/m2 vs non-obese if BMI <= 40 kg/m2) as well as other clinical and pathologic factors, such as age, uterine size (median size), and presence of exogenous progesterone effect. ^ Results: There were 39 patients diagnosed with either CAH or G1EEC treated with the LIUD. Of 39 patients, 12 did not have pathological results of biopsy at 6months time period. Of 27 evaluable patients, 17 were diagnosed with CAH and 10 with G1EEC. Overall response rate (RR) was 78% (95% CI = 62-94%) at 6 months, 18 patients had CR (4 in G1EEC; 14 in CAH), 3 patients had PR (3 in G1EEC), 3 had SD (1 in CAH; 2 in G1EEC), 3 had PD (2 in CAH; 1 in G1EEC). After histology stratification, RR at 6 months was 82.35% (14/17; 95%CI = 67.4-97.3%) in CAH and 70% (7/10; 95% CI = 41-98.4%) in G1EEC. ^ There was no difference in response (R) and no response (NR) based on BMI (p=0.56). He observed a trend showing association between age with response (p=0.1). There was no association between uterine size and response to therapy (p=0.17). We recorded strong association between exogenous progesterone effect and response. ^ Conclusion: LIUD therapy for the treatment of CAH and G1EEC may be effective and safe. Presence of exogenous progesterone effect may predict the response to LIUD therapy at earlier time points. There is need of further studies with larger sample size to explore the relationship of response with other clinical and pathologic factors^

Compactor device for large round bales

A compactor device for iarge round bales is disclosed comprising a horizontally disposed cylindrical housing containing a plunger, a double toggle mechanism connected to the plunger, a hydraulic cylinder connected to the double toggle mechanism for driving the plunger, and a stabilizer linkage connected to the plunger and the double toggle mechanism for maintaining the plunger in a vertical position during compaction of a bale.

Fluid pressure actuated net weighing device with pneumatic taring

The weighing device comprises a tension load cell including an upper liquid chamber and a lower air chamber which has a volume much greater than the volume of the liquid chamber. The weight of a suspended load and the load supporting structure on the load cell are applied on both chambers. A gauge reads the liquid pressure in the upper chamber and a valve unit connectible to a source of air under pressure is connected to the air chamber. The load cell is tared by initially adjusting the air pressure in the lower chamber to produce a zero reading on the gauge. When a load is applied on the device, the volume displacement of the air chamber is small relative to the volume displacement of the liquid in the upper chamber. The volume of the air chamber thus remains substantially constant so that the gauge indicates directly the net weight of the applied load.