Joy Victory is deputy managing editor of HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets as @thejoyvictory.
Yesterday we reported that 5 patient deaths linked to gastric weight loss balloon devices actually may be “the tip of the iceberg,” due to weak FDA regulations that don’t require mandatory reporting of complications from healthcare providers.
As a result, no one really knows how many patients have died or suffered serious complications after undergoing weight loss balloon procedures.
Unfortunately, the balloon devices (known as Orbera and Reshape) are just one of many “approved” medical devices now linked to serious post-market safety problems. And the reasons why often start long before the device is approved–very little clinical evidence is required, at least compared to the amount of evidence required for new drugs. So when a device is approved, it may not be safe. And when patient complications start to trickle in, inadequate oversight means the problem isn’t quickly addressed–if at all.
In 2017, the FDA issued a “safety alert” for roughly 465,000 radio frequency-enabled pacemakers that were already placed in U.S. patients.
To help journalists and consumers make sense of why this keeps happening, we launched an expanded primer in our toolkit: Why ‘approved’ medical devices in the U.S. may not be safe or effective.
I’ll admit–as the editor on the primer–I learned a lot. It was eye-opening for me to find out:
My main take-away: The medical device marketplace needs very close scrutiny from both journalists and consumers. People are dying and getting very sick from often-expensive devices that may not even work as intended. If it’s going to get better, we have to learn why and how the system is failing us–and that’s what our new page is meant to help you with.
Also, please feel free below to share any tools, tips or experiences you have related to medical device safety.
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