Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Don Owens, Deputy Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7767

David Rosen, Press Officer, Regulatory Affairs
w. (202) 588-7742

Luis Castilla, Press Officer, Public Citizen’s Texas office
w. (512) 637-9467

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog

Follow us on Twitter


Jan. 19, 2011  

FDA Dodges Responsibility Regarding Medical Device Approval, Defers to IOM

Statement of Dr. Sidney Wolfe, Director, Public Citizen’s Health Research Group

By deferring several important, previously proposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) actions to a future report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) – often because the device industry did not agree with these proposals when first issued by the FDA in August 2010 – the FDA is not being forceful enough about improving the safety and effectiveness of new devices.

In a “Letter to the American Public” written today by Dr. Jeff Shuren, the director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Shuren discusses the need to encourage innovation but also to assure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The FDA’s announcement today at least temporarily yields to the so-called innovation side of that equation.

Ironically, in the 510(k) process, whereby medical devices can essentially avoid rigorous pre-market studies for safety and effectiveness as long as they can establish their “substantial equivalence” to an existing or predicate medical device, the degree of “innovation” is theoretically limited by companies’ need to demonstrate how similar the 510(k) device is to devices already available.

Class III medical devices are high-risk or novel devices, most of which require direct demonstration of safety and effectiveness through the premarket approval (PMA) pathway.

But class II devices generally present less risk to patients and, in most cases, manufacturers must merely submit 510(k) substantially equivalent applications before marketing. There is little dispute that the industry, with FDA being complicit, has widely abused this process in the past.

Because some class II devices can also have substantial risks – especially if they are implantable, life-supporting or life-sustaining – the FDA proposed in August 2010 to develop a guidance “to define … a subset of class II devices called ‘class IIb’ devices, for which clinical information, manufacturing information, or, potentially, additional evaluation in the post-market setting would typically be necessary to support a substantial equivalence determination.” The agency’s reasoning was that “potential candidates for this device subset may include implantable devices, life-sustaining devices and life-supporting devices, which present greater risks than other class II device types.”

In our comments to this proposal, filed with the FDA in October 2010, we stated that: “Because the 510(k) process, as it is presently implemented, has failed to consistently protect the public health, we strongly advocate the division of class II devices so as to further stratify risk and guide premarket scrutiny. The existing statute permits the FDA to require clinical data in 510(k) applications. The agency should therefore do so for all devices subclassified into class IIb: All devices that are implantable, life-sustaining or life-supporting.”

In today’s announcement, the FDA described significant industry opposition to this class IIb proposal, perhaps because it might actually have to test some devices that now need only show substantial equivalence. The document also stated, however, that “Foreign regulatory bodies were supportive of the creation of a Class IIb because it would bring U.S. regulations closer to those of the European Union.”

Other important issues that the FDA deferred to the future IOM study, often because of industry opposition, included the need to:

● Define the scope and grounds for rescinding a 510(k) device clearance (currently, such authority is lacking);
● Seek more authority to require post-marketing studies as a condition of approval; and
● Clarify when a device should no longer be available as a predicate for a subsequent 510(k) device application.

 To read the comments submitted to the FDA in October, visit: http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4535.

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit public interest advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.


Copyright © 2017 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


You can support the fight for greater government and corporate accountability through a donation to either Public Citizen, Inc., or Public Citizen Foundation, Inc.

Public Citizen lobbies Congress and federal agencies to advance Public Citizen’s mission of advancing government and corporate accountability. When you make a contribution to Public Citizen, you become a member of Public Citizen, showing your support and entitling you to benefits such as Public Citizen News. Contributions to Public Citizen are not tax-deductible.

Public Citizen Foundation focuses on research, public education, and litigation in support of our mission. By law, the Foundation can engage in only very limited lobbying. Contributions to Public Citizen Foundation are tax-deductible.