With proposals in the 21st Century Cures Act poised to reduce patient safeguards in the approval of new medical devices, Trudy Lieberman continues her look at the gaping holes that already exist in the FDA’s oversight of the industry.
For the second time in a month the news media has told the sorry tale of two failing medical devices that remained on the market long after their manufacturers were aware of problems that could harm patients. In late December came the Los Angeles Times piece advising readers that Olympus, the manufacturer of endoscopes linked to transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that killed 21 people and sickened some two dozen more, was still being used long after problems had surfaced. The Times found that “Even as patients died and others were put at risk, Olympus continued to sell the device and failed to warn U.S. hospitals that the scopes were tied to dangerous infections.”
NBC Nightly News recently offered a similarly scary follow-up to its investigation last fall (see here and here) that showed a device called the C.R. Bard Recovery Filter implanted in the body to stop blood clots from moving to the heart and lungs had fatal flaws. The device had caused 27 deaths and 300 non-fatal medical events.
I liked the NBC piece but noted that it might have gotten more attention had the network reported the FDA had sent Bard a warning letter a few months before the show aired which described several violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. NBC’s follow-up is first rate and adds to the growing body of work showing that despite FDA approval, dangerous devices lurk in the marketplace driven by the corporate quest to squeeze out more profits and the FDA’s political imperative to please the industry. NBC News got a hold of confidential company records that show Bard was concerned about the failure of its G2 series filters within four months of receiving FDA clearance to market the product. A confidential memo from a Bard executive written in late 2005 soon after the filter got the FDA’s okay told of his concern about “problems with…migration,” “tilting” and “perforation.” A later document that includes data through 2010 showed, according to NBC, that the “G2 series had more fractures, migrations and reported problems than any of its competitors.” The G2 series filters stayed on the market until 2010. Bard maintains the device is safe telling NBC, “We steadfastly believe in the safety and efficacy of these devices when used as instructed.”
“The number of complications, the frequency of severe failures makes it obvious that it was never safe to be implanted,” says Dr. William, Kuo, an interventional radiologist at Stanford Health Care’s IVC Filter Clinic. He estimates he has removed 1,000 failed filters in the last 10 years. “What we’ve learned the hard way is that we can no longer rely on medical device companies to do what’s in the best interest of the patient. And we can no longer rely on the FDA to property regulate these devices.”
Kuo’s observation circles back to a question we keep asking: who will warn the public?
Trudy Lieberman is a veteran health care journalist and regular blogger for HealthNewsReview.org. She often writes about consumer cost and safety issues. She tweets as @Trudy_Lieberman.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like