Joint replacements are the #1 expenditure of Medicare. The process of approving these medical devices is flawed according to the Institute of Medicine. It is time for patients' voices to be heard as stakeholders and for public support for increased medical device industry accountability and heightened protections for patients. Post-market registry. Product warranty. Patient/consumer stakeholder equity. Rescind industry pre-emptions/entitlements. All clinical trials must report all data.
Please share what you have learned!
Twitter: @JjrkCh
Showing posts with label revision surgery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revision surgery. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Get an Unsafe, Ineffective Medical Implant & Lose Your Civil Rights!



September 26, 2017 Press Release
WASHINGTON, DC (September 26, 2017) Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) released the following statement urging Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act, which would enhance legal protection for victims of unsafe medical devices. Currently, high risk device manufacturers are protected from being held liable at the state and local levels if their device has received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
”One of our government’s most important duties is to keep our people safe from harm, whether it is the food we eat, the medications we take, or the medical devices we use,” said DeLauro. “Too often, that basic mission is going unfulfilled at the FDA. Failure at the FDA has awful consequences, as faulty medical devices have tragically injured, or even killed, thousands of Americans across the country.

“Instead of serving as a steward for public safety, the FDA has put its stamp of approval on these potentially unsafe devices, with manufacturers’ bearing no legal risk when things go wrong,” continued DeLauro. “Even after the FDA knows that these devices put people at risk, it simply will not take them off the market. That is why Congress must immediately pass the Medical Device Safety Act, to arm American families with the necessary tools to hold these companies accountable once and for all. I will not let up in the fight—alongside my colleagues and consumer advocates—to get this life-saving legislation signed into law.”
“The health of thousands of women has been negatively affected by FDA’s lack of proper oversight, specifically with Essure,” said Amanda Rusmisell, Legislative Liaison for the Essure Problems Group. “This product not only impacts women’s quality of life, it also puts an enormous financial strain on them and their families. Despite FDA’s Black Box Warning on Essure and our pleas to take this product off the market, women are still in the dark about its potential dangers— such as hysterectomies, autoimmune diseases, additional surgeries, and life-threatening health effects. That is why the Medical Device Safety Act is so crucial. Women deserve to know about the dangers of this product, and if they are impacted by Essure, they must be able to take action.”

DeLauro is a senior member on the subcommittee responsible for funding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
###


2413 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3661
Fax: (202) 225-4890

59 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Phone: (203) 562-3718

Fax: (203) 772-2260

Friday, November 4, 2016

Harmed Patients Given Unjust Solomon's Choice: Trust the Settlement is Best Option or Jury Trial

Additional information:


Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel Announce a Settlement Program for Wright Medical Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Anthonia Spencer | November 2, 2016

After a hard-fought, almost 5-year battle in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia and in California state court, we are pleased to announce a settlement program that will resolve a significant number of claims against Wright Medical.  Wright Medical has agreed to settle approximately 1,300 claims of certain Wright Medical metal-on-metal hip implant patient-claimants whose hips were revised at least 150 days and no more than eight years post-implant.  There are approximately 2,300 pending claims involving Wright Medical’s Conserve, Lineage, and Dynasty metal-on-metal hips.  Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel’s retained financial analysts have been evaluating Wright Medical’s ability to settle these cases for years. Based on that analysis, we believe that Wright Medical was not in a position to and therefore could not agree to settle the remaining claims involving revisions occurring after eight years or other cases that it deemed not qualified at this time.  During the negotiations with Wright Medical, it was made clear that claims for revised Wright metal-on-metal hips that are not included in this settlement will be part of subsequent settlement programs.
The Wright Conserve Multi-District Litigation (MDL) was consolidated in February 2012 in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia before the Hon. William S. Duffey, Jr., United States District Judge.  Additionally, a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) petition was approved in May 2012 before the Hon. Jane Johnson, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, consolidating California state-court cases involving Wright Medical hip replacement and revision matters, including Wright Medical’s Conserve, Lineage, and Dynasty hip implants.  The Hon. Diane M. Welsh (Ret.), led the extended settlement negotiations and tirelessly worked with the parties for several years to help facilitate the settlement.
Wright Medical’s hip and knee division (OrthoRecon) was sold in January 2014, and the successor corporation has a defense that it did not inherit the liability.  Our financial analysts’ review further indicated that Wright Medical’s ability to fund this settlement depended largely on insurance coverage and a bond issue used, in part, to raise money for this settlement.  Wright Medical has been engaged in litigation in Memphis with most of its insurance carriers and recently finalized an agreement with 3 of the carriers.  It remains in litigation or coverage disputes with its remaining carriers.  In light of our analysis of Wright Medical’s financial condition, this is a timely and meaningful settlement, offering $170,000 to claimants who had the monoblock Conserve Cup, the device with the most frequent failures, and $120,000 to those who had the metal-liner Dynasty and Lineage devices.  An additional, but capped, limited fund is also available for claimants who suffered discrete and defined claims of extraordinary injury.  More importantly, the settlement program calls for pre-qualification, without registration, coupled with a very simple administrative process for claimants not pursing extraordinary injury claims that will lead to expeditious payments expected to be largely complete by summer 2017.  Counsel for eligible claimants will be notified of their pre-qualification by February 3, 2017.

Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel consists of Michael L. McGlamry of Pope McGlamry, P.C. in Atlanta, Georgia, mmcglamry@pmkm.com / 404-523-7706; Raymond P. Boucher of Boucher LLP in Woodland Hills, California, ray@boucher.la / 818-340-5400; Helen Zukin of Kiesel Law in Beverly Hills, California; Peter Burg of Burg Simpson in Englewood, Colorado; Christopher Yuhl of Yuhl Carr, LLP in Marina del Rey, California; Sean Jez of Fleming Nolen & Jez, L.L.P. in Houston, Texas; and Ellen Relkin of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. in New York, New York.

http://www.pmkm.com/plaintiffs-leadership-counsel-announce-a-settlement-program-for-wright-medical-metal-on-metal-hip-implants/






PART 1

Wright Medical Group to settle over metal-on-metal hip implants for up to $240M: 5 things to know  

Written by  Eric Oliver Date created | Thursday, 03 November 2016 20:07

Amsterdam, Netherlands-based Wright Medical Group entered into a Master Settlement Agreement over litigation on its Hip Implant products.

Here's what you need to know.

1. Wright and the lawyers representing the plaintiffs agreed to settle 1,292 revision claims concerning its Conserve, Dynasty or Lineage hip implants

2. Wright will settle for up to $240 million with $180 million in cash and $60 million for insurance recoveries.

3. The settlement requires a 95 percent opt-in clause. Wright Medical will void the settlement if more than 5 percent of the plaintiffs opt out of it.

4. CEO Robert Palmisano said he was pleased to reach the settlement, and the company will now focus on "accelerating growth opportunities in its extremities and biologics markets."

5. Wright will "vigorously defend" any claims that were not settled. The company estimates there are 600 cases that will not be included in the settlement.
http://www.beckersspine.com/orthopedic-spine-practices-improving-profits/item/34049-wright-medical-group-to-settle-over-metal-on-metal-hip-implants-for-up-to-240m-5-things-to-know.html

PART 2:



Wright Medical Group N.V. Announces Entry Into Metal-On-Metal Hip Litigation Settlement AgreementPreviously Disclosed Agreement In Principle with Three Insurance Carriers Also Finalized Settlement In Line with Previously Disclosed Range of Loss

AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands, Nov. 02, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Wright Medical Group N.V. (NASDAQ:WMGI) today announced that on November 1, 2016, its wholly owned subsidiary Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (WMT) entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Court-appointed attorneys representing plaintiffs in the previously disclosed metal-on-metal hip multi-district litigation known as In Re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., CONSERVE® Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329 (MDL) and the consolidated proceeding pending in state court in California known as In re: Wright Hip System Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4710 (JCCP).  In addition, on October 28, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement with three of its insurance carriers (Three Settling Insurers). 
Under the terms of the MSA, the parties agreed to settle 1,292 specifically identified CONSERVE, DYNASTY or LINEAGE revision claims which meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA and are either pending in the MDL or JCCP, or are subject to tolling agreements approved in the MDL or JCCP, for a total settlement amount of $240 million, of which approximately $180 million will be funded from cash on hand and $60 million will be funded from insurance recoveries.
Eligibility requirements of the MSA include that the claimant has a pending or tolled case in the MDL or JCCP, has undergone a revision surgery within eight years of the original implantation surgery, and that the claim has not been identified by WMT as having possible statute of limitation issues.  Claimants who have had bilateral revision surgeries will be counted as two claims but only to the extent both claims separately satisfy all eligibility criteria. 
The MSA includes a 95% opt-in requirement, meaning the MSA may be terminated by WMT prior to any settlement disbursement if claimants holding greater than 5% of eligible claims in the Final Settlement Pool elect to “opt-out” of the settlement.  No funding of any individual plaintiff settlement will occur until the 95% opt-in requirement has been satisfied or waived.
Robert Palmisano, president and chief executive officer, commented, “We are very pleased to have reached this settlement agreement, in particular the population of claims that the settlement covers as well as the required 95% opt-in rate for those claims.  With this clarity, we will continue to focus on accelerating growth opportunities in the extremities and biologics markets.  This settlement addresses approximately 85% of the known U.S. revision claims that do not have potential statute of limitations issues and removes a great deal of the uncertainty that has been associated with this litigation.”
Wright will continue to vigorously defend metal-on-metal hip claims not settled pursuant to the MSA.  As of September 25, 2016, the company estimates there were approximately 600 outstanding metal-on-metal hip revision claims that would not be included in the MSA settlement, including approximately 200 claims with an implant duration of more than eight years, approximately 300 claims subject to possible statute of limitations preclusion, approximately 30 claims pending in U.S. courts other than the MDL and JCCP, approximately 50 claims pending in non-U.S. courts, and approximately 20 claims that would be eligible for inclusion in the settlement but for the participation limitations contained in the MSA.  The company also estimates that there were approximately 700 outstanding metal-on-metal hip non-revision claims as of September 25, 2016.  These non-revision cases are excluded from the MSA.
The final MSA settlement amount (not to exceed $240 million), and the final number of claims settled under the MSA, will depend on, among other things, the number of claimants electing to participate in the settlement and the mix of products implanted in the settling claimant group.  Claims which do not meet the eligibility requirements of the MSA, new claims, and claims which have opted-out of the settlement will not be settled under the MSA and the company will continue to defend these claims. 
The company previously disclosed a loss range applicable to a substantial portion of revision cases of $150 million to $198 million and, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting practices (US GAAP), recognized as a charge within discontinued operations in the second quarter of 2016 $150 million, the low end of the range of probable loss for these cases.  During the third quarter of 2016, the company recorded charges of approximately $39 million to increase its accrual from the low end of its previous range of probable loss to the amounts in line with the final agreements and to record accruals for certain other revision cases. Please refer to the disclosures in the company’s third quarter 2016 quarterly report on Form 10-Q for a full discussion of our accruals and disclosures related to this matter.   
WMT has agreed to escrow $150 million to secure its obligations under the MSA, and parent corporation Wright Medical Group N.V. has agreed to guaranty WMT’s obligations under the MSA.     
The MSA will help bring to a close significant metal-on-metal litigation activity in the U.S.  Some lawsuits, however, will remain and Wright will continue to defend against remaining claims and any future claims that could be filed.  The ultimate cost to entirely resolve these matters will depend on many factors that are difficult to predict and may be materially different than the amounts accrued to date, including future revision claims and additional insurance recoveries.  Further charges may need to be recorded in the future as additional information becomes available.  
Internet Posting of Information
Wright routinely posts information that may be important to investors in the “Investor Relations” section of its website at www.wright.com.  The company encourages investors and potential investors to consult the Wright website regularly for important information about Wright.
About Wright Medical Group N.V.
Wright Medical Group N.V. is a global medical device company focused on extremities and biologics products. The company is committed to delivering innovative, value-added solutions improving quality of life for patients worldwide and is a recognized leader of surgical solutions for the upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand), lower extremities (foot and ankle) and biologics markets, three of the fastest growing segments in orthopaedics.  For more information about Wright, visit www.wright.com.
™ and ® denote trademarks and registered trademarks of Wright Medical Group N.V. or its affiliates, registered as indicated in the United States, and in other countries.  All other trademarks and trade names referred to in this release are the property of their respective owners.
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS 
This release includes forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  These forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of words such as “will,” “may,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “could,” “believe,” “estimate,” “future,” other words of similar meaning and the use of future dates.  Forward-looking statements in this release include, but are not limited to, statements about the effects of the settlement agreements and the amount and funding of the settlement amounts. Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are, to different degrees, uncertain. Each forward-looking statement contained in this release is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statement.  Applicable risks and uncertainties include, among others, risks and uncertainties associated with the MSA and the settlement agreement with the Three Settling Insurers, including without limitation, the final MSA settlement amount and the final number of claims settled under the MSA,  the possibility that the 95% opt-in requirement may not be achieved, the resolution of the remaining unresolved claims, the effect of the broad release of certain insurance coverage for present and future claims, the resolution of the company’s dispute with the remaining carriers; and the other risks identified under the heading “Risk Factors” in Wright’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27, 2015 filed by Wright with the SEC on February 23, 2016 and Wright’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 25, 2016 anticipated to be filed by Wright with the SEC on November 2, 2016.  Investors should not place considerable reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this release.  Investors are encouraged to read Wright’s filings with the SEC, available at www.sec.gov, for a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements in this release speak only as of the date of this release, and Wright undertakes no obligation to update or revise any of these statements.  Wright’s business is subject to substantial risks and uncertainties, including those referenced above.  Investors, potential investors, and others should give careful consideration to these risks and uncertainties. 
Investors & Media:
Wright Medical Group N.V.
Julie D. Tracy
Sr. VP, Chief Communications Officer
(901) 290-5817 (office)
Wright Medical Group N.V.
http://ir.wright.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=129751&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2218769

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

J&J relies on European registries for recall data: FDA fails to protect US citizens.



J&J’s Ethicon recalls Physiomesh flexible composite hernia mesh

JUNE 20, 2016 BY BRAD PERRIELLO   FiDA highlight
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) subsidiary Ethicon last month recalled 1 of its surgical mesh products after studies showed higher revision rates after a type of minimally invasive hernia repair using its Physiomesh flexible composite mesh.
In a May 25 letter to healthcare providers, Ethicon said it’s pulling the mesh after a review of unpublished data from a pair of European registries revealed the discrepancy between Physiomesh flexible composite and the other meshes in the registries after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.
West Somerville, N.J.-based Ethicon said it believes the higher revision rates are due to a “multifactorial issue,” possibly including “product characteristics, operative and patient factors,” but hasn’t been able to pin down a cause.
“Consequently, Ethicon [has] not been able at this time to issue further instructions to surgeons that might lead to a reduction in the recurrence rate and [has] decided to recall Ethicon Physiomesh composite mesh from the global market,” according to the letter. “Ethicon will not return theEthicon Physiomesh composite mesh product to the market worldwide.”
Patients already implanted with the product should be followed as usual, the company said. The recall does not involve any other Ethicon meshes, including the Physiomesh Open flexible composite mesh, it said.

“Ethicon recognizes the voluntary product recall of the Ethicon Physiomesh composite mesh may be disruptive to your facility and apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause,” the company wrote. A list of the affected product codes can be found here.

http://www.massdevice.com/jjs-ethicon-recalls-physiomesh-flexible-composite-hernia-mesh/

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Zimmer Persona Knee Revision Surgery Prompts Recall



Zimmer Persona Knee: They Don’t Make ’em Like They Used To

June 13, 2016, 08:00:00AM. By Gordon Gibb  FiDA highlight

Warsaw, IN
It’s a common refrain in the modern age: things are not as they were. People don’t respect each other, or each other’s property like they used to. The politeness of old has vanished. “They don’t make ’em like they used to.” And for the most part, things aren’t built to last. One must forgive such a lament coming from the plaintiff behind a Zimmer Persona lawsuit alleging a failed Zimmer Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial plate.

Pundits find it remarkable that while the life expectancy of Americans continues to rise - thanks in part to ongoing advancements in modern medicine, disease prevention and more active lifestyles - the quality of the “parts” employed to make us whole again continues to decline, or so it appears.

A fast-track approval process employed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring new products to market more quickly without the traditional, years-long clinical trial process isn’t helping.

There is little doubt that for the majority of Americans, prosthetic knee devices work well and are on track to achieve the assumed service life expectancy of 15 years or more. However, when patients begin having problems with their medical devices - again, in the minority - even an apparent small number can have sufficient statistical impact to warrant a product recall.

That’s what happened last year with the Zimmer Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial plate. The latter is a plate that sits atop the tibia and serves as the surface area for the prosthetic knee device. According to various attorneys engaged in Zimmer lawsuits, a growing minority of patients reported loosening of the plates. This, in part, appears to be exacerbated by a lack of bone growth into the tibial plate, which would serve to anchor the plate. For a statistically large number of patients, this bone growth was either insufficient or not happening at all, leading to Zimmer Persona Knee pain and failure of the artificial knee.

Just referencing the failure of a medical device, implanted into a human body and failing soon after implantation, is serious enough without consideration of where a patient might be, or the activity involved at the point at which an artificial knee fails: driving a car; crossing a busy intersection; skiing; even walking across the kitchen with a steaming hot cup of tea from which a patient could suffer scalds or serious burns were a Zimmer knee to suddenly fail.

Thus, the Zimmer Persona Recall of 2015 when the Zimmer Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial plate was voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer - a recall endorsed by the FDA. Many patients experiencing Zimmer Persona Knee pain from a failed Zimmer Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial plate and requiring revision surgery to replace the failed component(s) are filing a Zimmer Persona Metal Plate lawsuit to seek compensation for pain, suffering and even loss of income. Revision procedures are often more complex than the initial procedure, with higher rates of complication. Having to go through a second surgery so soon after the first, followed by additional rounds of physiotherapy and rehabilitation, can eat into an individual’s income and livelihood given the additional time away from work.

The Zimmer Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial plate, it should be noted, was brought to market through an FDA 510(k) Clearance, the regulator’s fast-track program that allows design updates or new devices substantially similar to those already on the market and performing well to be brought to market without having to go through a clinical trial.

Clinical trials are long-term tests on volunteer patients, conducted to establish the safety and efficacy of a medical device before it is released to market and made available to the general population. If there are problems that surface in clinical trials, the device can be revised prior to a full market release.

Zimmer Biomet (Zimmer) is not the only manufacturer recalling medical devices. Other blue-chip medical devices firms are becoming saddled with recalls. Similarly, the FDA 510(k) Clearance is available to most large device manufacturers.


Speaking of Zimmer, US Official News (4/14/16) reports another Zimmer Persona Recall, but this one has to do with packaging. According to the FDA, the recall involved the Persona Personalized Knee System Articular Surface Posterior Stabilized (PS) Left Height 18mm Sterile For use in total knee arthroplasty (REF # 42-5114-008-18).

The recall stemmed from a complaint that there were two sets of information on the box containing the product: One side showed P/N: 42-5114-008-18/ Lot: 62632101 and the other side showed P/N: 42-5114-005-14/ Lot: 62646580.

The products at issue were distributed to various states in the United States as well as globally (but not Canada).


The Zimmer Persona Recall was voluntary, issued by the manufacturer.
https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/zimmer-persona/zimmer-persona-lawsuit-recall-10-21533.html?opt=b&utm_expid=3607522-13.DLfjpNTnSeOVrAk1Ud2uNA.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Public Health Opportunity! Update FDA Medical Device Advisory Panel rules


Procedures for Meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee 
Draft Guidance for Industry and 
Food and Drug Administration 
Staff 
DRAFT GUIDANCE 
This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only. Document issued on: April 1, 2015  FiDA Highlight Added
You should submit comments and suggestions regarding this draft document within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA- 305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Identify all comments with the docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register
For questions regarding this document, contact James Swink at 301-796-6313 or James.Swink@fda.hhs.gov
When final, this document will supersede Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory Panel Meetings, issued July 22, 2000, and Panel Review of Premarket Approval Applications #P91-2, issued May 3, 1991
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health Office of Device Evaluation Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health 
Preface Additional Copies 
Additional copies are available from the Internet. You may also send an e-mail request to 
CDRH-Guidance@fda.hhs.gov to receive a copy of the guidance. Please use the document number (413) to identify the guidance you are requesting. 

Procedures for Meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee
Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff 
This draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this guidance. 
1 Introduction 
The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is issuing this draft guidance to provide additional information regarding the processes for meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee panels other than the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).1 The term “panel,” as used in this guidance, refers to the panels described in the Medical Devices Advisory Committee charter excluding the DRP. This guidance describes the general circumstances in which CDRH consults with a panel, the process for exchange of information between CDRH, the members of the panel, industry, and the public, and the conduct of panel meetings. 
FDA’s guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe FDA’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word “should” in FDA guidance means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required. 
2 Background 
The Medical Devices Advisory Committee includes 17 panels other than the DRP.2 The panels, according to their specialty area and authorization, advise the Commissioner in
discharging responsibilities as they relate to assuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices, and as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility. 
This guidance is intended to provide more comprehensive information for industry and for CDRH staff on the processes associated with a panel meeting held for any of the reasons identified in this guidance. Once final, this guidance will replace the Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory Panel Meetings (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/u cm073722.htm) and the guidance document Panel Review of Premarket Approval Applications #P91-2 (blue book memo) (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/u cm081363.htm). This guidance supplements existing FDA Agency-wide guidance on the conduct of advisory committee meetings. 
3 Scope 
As noted above, this guidance applies only to panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee other than the DRP. It does not apply to other device-related or radiation- emitting product advisory committees, such as the Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee, the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee, or the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee. 
4 Types of Panel Meeting Topics 
FDA may refer a matter to a panel for the following, with regard to medical device regulation: 
1. Advice on a Premarket Submission. Panels consisting of persons with expertise relevant to the medical device premarket submissions under review provide valuable advice on the regulation of that medical device for CDRH’s consideration. These meetings provide an opportunity for addressing scientific, clinical, or public health issues with broad public input, discussion by a panel of experts, and comment by interested parties. When the Agency is not legally required to refer a particular submission to an advisory committee,3 CDRH intends to consider taking it before a panel if, in CDRH’s judgment, the submission is of significant public interest, the 
 submission is highly controversial, or there is a special type of expertise provided by the panel that could assist the Agency in its decision-making. See Draft Guidance for the Public and FDA Staff on Convening Advisory Committee Meetings (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125651.pdf). 
Scenarios in which CDRH may seek panel input include, but are not limited to: 
  1. novel technology expected to have a significant impact on clinical
    practice;
  2. study results provide significant uncertainty as to whether the probable
    benefits of the device outweigh its probable risks (e.g., fails to meet pre- specified endpoints or reach statistical significance, presence of unanticipated serious safety concerns); and
  3. significant study data quality or data integrity issues identified (e.g., substantial amounts of missing data, large number of protocol deviations, data integrity concerns).
CDRH intends to consider panel review for multiple types of submissions, including premarket notifications (510(k)s), de novo requests (de novo) and humanitarian device exemptions (HDEs). The panel’s recommendations are then considered as part of CDRH’s decision whether to allow marketing of the device. 
2. Regulatory Issues. CDRH may refer a matter to a panel for advice on regulatory actions or to discuss general scientific matters. These types of meetings include, but are not limited to: 
o Classification/Reclassification. FDA is required by statute to seek a panel’s input as part of the classification of a preamendments device (see 513(c)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)) or as part of the process to reclassify such a device (see 513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act).
In addition, FDA may for good cause shown refer a petition requesting reclassification of a postamendments device to a panel under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, but is not required to do so. 
o General Issues. CDRH may seek the panel’s expertise on scientific issues that are related to a device type or a general topic that is relevant to medical device safety and effectiveness but not related to any one particular device. For example, CDRH may request expert input in formulating recommendations for industry applicants wishing to conduct a clinical trial of a device type, to inform the development of a guidance document, or to develop regulatory strategies to mitigate certain device risks. CDRH may also take post market 
safety issues to a panel meeting for recommendations. As noted above, FDA intends to consider convening a panel meeting when a matter is of significant public interest, a matter is highly controversial, or there is a special type of expertise provided by the panel that could assist the Agency in its decision- making. 
Issues considered by the panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee are generally “particular matters” under 5 CFR 2640.103(a)(1). Thus, federal officers or employees (including special government employees (SGEs)) with disqualifying financial interests are generally prohibited from participating in the particular matter unless a waiver is granted. However, they may attend the panel meeting as a member of the public. For more information on conflict of interest, please refer to FDA’s relevant guidance documents: Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff on Procedures for Determining Conflict of Interest and Eligibility for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125646.pdf) and Public Availability of Advisory Committee Members' Financial Interest Information and Waivers (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM295372.pdf)
5 Exchange of Information for Panel Meetings 
The sections below describe the development and release of briefing materials prepared for the open portions of panel meetings, consistent with 5 U.S.C App. 2.5 For more information on briefing materials, please refer to Guidance for Industry - Advisory Committee Meetings— Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125650.pdf). 
Panel meetings are scheduled based on the availability of necessary SGEs, FDA staff, sponsor6 staff, and an appropriate meeting venue. All panel meetings are announced in the Federal Register. The public, including any stakeholders that may be impacted by the deliberations of a panel, are encouraged to submit relevant information to the related Federal Register docket via http://www.regulations.gov in advance of the panel meeting. The public may also submit written materials directly to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) as announced in each Federal Register notice. All panel-related questions should be relayed through the DFO listed in the Federal Register notice. 
5.1 Premarket Submission Meeting Topics 
Under most circumstances, Premarket Submission panel meeting topics involve 
deliberations regarding a single medical device for which marketing authorization is sought. Regardless of the submission type under which a device is being reviewed (PMA, 510(k), de novo, or HDE), CDRH intends to provide to the panel members and the sponsor a prepared panel package of briefing materials, referred to as the “Panel Pack,” which may include: 
  1. FDA’s agenda;
  2. FDA’s Executive Summary;
  3. FDA’s questions for panel consideration;
  4. Sponsor’s Executive Summary;
  5. Appropriate sections or excerpts from the submission (i.e., relevant nonclinical
    and clinical data, draft summary of safety and effectiveness data, proposed
    labeling);
  6. Any information deemed relevant by the FDA (e.g., publications/literature);
  7. Related information submitted by the sponsor.
CDRH suggests the following timeline for interactions between the sponsor and CDRH on panel briefing materials for a meeting where input on a premarket submission is sought. These recommendations further inform the timelines for review of releasable/non-releasable information, as contained in Guidance for Industry - Advisory Committee Meetings— Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125650.pdf)
  1.   Approximately fifty-five (55) business days before the panel meeting: 
    1. CDRH should send the sponsor an Advisory Committee information letter, including a draft outline of material that the Center intends to include in the Panel Pack.
    2. CDRH should ask that the sponsor identify any additional information from the premarket submission, or other related information, they wish to be included in the Panel Pack.
  1.   Approximately forty-two (42) business days before the panel meeting:
    The sponsor should submit two versions of its proposed sections of the Panel Pack to CDRH: a complete (unredacted) version and a redacted version for FDA Freedom of Information (FOI) review in accordance with 21 CFR 20.
  2.   Between forty-two (42) and twenty-two (22) business days before the panel meeting:
1. CDRH should assess the sponsor’s unredacted sections of the Panel Pack for completeness and relevance and provide any feedback regarding the proposed content to the sponsor by telephone or e-mail. 

  1. CDRH and the sponsor should exchange and review for factual errors the information proposed by each party to be included in the Panel Pack.7
  2. Once any errors are resolved, the sponsor should submit an adequate number of unredacted copies, or an electronic version, of its section(s) of the final Panel Pack for the panel and CDRH staff involved in the meeting.
  1.   Approximately twenty-one (21) to fourteen (14) business days before the panel meeting:
    CDRH should send the final unredacted Panel Pack to the panel members and the sponsor. Panel Packs may be provided electronically to facilitate timely dissemination of information.
  2.   Approximately five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the sponsor and CDRH should exchange draft slides intended for presentation to the panel at the meeting.
  3.   Two (2) full business days (or more) before the panel meeting, CDRH should post on the FDA website both the sponsor’s and CDRH’s publicly available briefing materials.
    As described in the “Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members” guidance, FDA’s Freedom of Information (FOI) staff should work interactively with the sponsor to ensure that the proper redactions are made prior to the Panel Pack being posted on FDA’s website. New data and significant new analyses will not generally be reviewed by CDRH if they are received less than 12 weeks prior to a panel meeting. The Panel Pack and sponsor presentation should generally be limited to information that was included in the submission prior to this timeframe or agreed upon for inclusion by CDRH. In the limited circumstances in which a sponsor finds it necessary to include other data or analyses in the Panel Pack or in its presentation, the affected sections of the Panel Pack and each slide of the presentation containing such information should prominently note that the data or analysis, as appropriate, was not provided to CDRH prior to inclusion in the Panel Pack or sponsor presentation and, as such, has not been formally reviewed by
    CDRH. Sponsors are advised that the panel may or may not choose to consider such information in their deliberations.
5.2 Regulatory Issues Meeting Topics 
In general, Regulatory Issues panel meeting topics involve deliberations that impact a device type or multiple device types. 
For these meetings, CDRH intends to provide to the panel members a Panel Pack that contains: 
  1. FDA’s agenda;
  2. FDA’s Executive Summary; and
  3. FDA’s questions for panel consideration.
Consistent with Guidance for Industry: Advisory Committee Meetings—Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members, CDRH intends to make available on its website, no later than 2 full business days in advance of a Regulatory Issues panel meeting, the publicly available briefing information from the Panel Pack. In addition, in advance of the panel meeting, CDRH should provide affected persons with relevant portions of any briefing materials that (in our determination) contain information that, under certain circumstances, could be considered to be confidential commercial or trade secret information. Any interested parties wishing to comment on the issues for panel discussion may request time to speak during the open public hearing session of the panel meeting (see section 6.2 below). 
6 Conduct of Panel Meetings 
CDRH intends to conduct Medical Device Advisory Committee panel meetings consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), other relevant statutes (e.g., the FD&C Act), regulations (e.g., 21 CFR 14.25, 14.29), and Agency guidance and policies. The order of discussion of the presentations below does not necessarily reflect the order of presentation at an advisory panel meeting. 
6.1 Medical Device Industry Presentations 
Under Section 513(b)(6)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act, any person whose device is specifically the subject of review by a panel shall have “the same opportunity as the Secretary to participate in meetings of the panel.” Further, Section 513(b)(6)(B) of the FD&C Act requires that: (1) adequate time be provided for initial presentations; (2) adequate time be provided for response to any differing views by persons whose devices are specifically the subject of panel; and (3) free and open participation by all interested persons be encouraged. For Premarket Submission panel meeting topics, the sponsor should generally be provided 60 minutes (and up to 90 minutes if (1) the sponsor requests and the Panel Chair agrees that additional time is needed, or (2) the CDRH presentation is 90 minutes) to present information to the panel. Industry presentations for Regulatory Issues panel meetings are encouraged, and a segment of the panel meeting agenda should be designated for this purpose. If industry stakeholders request time to speak in advance, the same 60 (or 90) minute presentation slots described above will generally apply. However, the time slot for the affected persons may be divided among those that have requested time to present information to the panel. Industry stakeholders who wait until the day of the panel meeting to request time to speak will be allowed to speak at the discretion of the Panel Chairperson. 
6.2 CDRH Presentation 
CDRH intends to present any necessary regulatory background and its review and assessment of the scientific and/or clinical information for which panel input is requested. CDRH's presentation is generally limited to 60 minutes (but up to 90 minutes may be allotted due to special circumstances). FDA’s slides typically present the Agency’s scientific and/or regulatory view of the issues at hand and ask for specific guidance from the panel regarding FDA’s questions. 
Depending on the complexity of the regulatory issues being discussed, CDRH may opt to conduct pre-meeting training for only the panel members (including any non-voting industry, consumer, or patient representatives). Such training could include discussion of general regulatory and/or statutory terminology and the applicability of CDRH’s regulations to the panel meeting topic, such as classification/reclassification procedures, regulations related to medical device marketing submissions, etc. Any pre-meeting training should provide general background and typically will not include information specific to any device(s) being discussed in the open panel meeting. The panel should not deliberate on any issue being brought before the panel at this time nor provide any advice to the Center. Subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the training materials should be made available for public inspection. 
6.3 Open Public Hearing 
Every advisory committee meeting includes an open public hearing (OPH) session, during which interested persons may present relevant information or views orally or in writing (21 CFR 14.25(a)). FDA’s regulation, 21 CFR 14.29(a), requires that a minimum of 60 minutes per meeting be dedicated to an OPH session for oral presentations, unless public participation does not last that long, at which time the OPH will generally be concluded. The OPH for panel meetings should be conducted in accordance with Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff: The Open Public Hearing at FDA Advisory Committee Meetings (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM236144.pdf). 
6.4 Panel Deliberations and CDRH Questions 
There should be approximately one hour designated for general panel deliberations. During their deliberations and before addressing the CDRH questions, the panel may require clarification or have questions about the information presented. In such cases, both CDRH and the affected person(s) should be provided an equal opportunity to respond to questions from panel members. 
Once the general panel deliberations are completed, CDRH should ask the specific questions to the panel. Additional input from interested parties, including a sponsor, will be allowed at the discretion of the Panel Chair. In order for the panel to provide useful information to both CDRH and other interested parties, and to allow the panel more time to discuss the issues, 
CDRH will generally request that the panel members provide their scientific opinions and recommendations to the questions posed by CDRH without interruption. 
6.5 Panel Voting 
The Voting Procedures for panel meetings are described in 21 CFR 14.22(d), and matters are to be considered by all voting members present at the time. There are no provisions for absentee voting, proxy voting, or any voting method other than voting by those present and attending the meeting. A member should be considered present if he or she has participated in the full deliberations of the meeting by phone. A member who leaves the meeting prior to the vote should not be able to cast a vote. All voting should be conducted in public view. The list of voting members and those appointed as temporary voting members should be read into the record at each panel meeting. For more information on voting procedures, please refer to Guidance for FDA Advisory Committee Members and FDA Staff: Voting Procedures for Advisory Committee Meetings (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125641.pdf). 
6.5.1 When to Vote 
The formal voting process is typically used for panel meetings involving a specific device marketing submission, i.e. Premarket Submission meetings. For Regulatory Issues meetings involving classifications or reclassifications, guidance documents, and other general issues brought to panel, the panel should be asked to discuss the issues and provide recommendations on questions asked by CDRH, but no formal vote will generally be taken. 
6.5.2 Voting Procedure for Premarket Submission Panel Meetings Regarding PMA Applications
The panel is typically expected to respond to three questions relating to safety, effectiveness and benefit versus risk for specific devices that are the subject of a PMA application. After completing the panel deliberations and after answering discussion questions as explained in Section 6.4 of this guidance, CDRH intends to ask panel members to vote by open ballot or via electronic voting, and each vote will be associated with a specific panel member. Panel members should be instructed to vote on the following questions relating to the approvability of the device based on their expertise, the information they reviewed in preparation for the meeting, and the information presented at the meeting: 
Voting Question 1: 
Is there reasonable assurance that X device is safe for indication(s) A (and B, etc.)?
Voting Question 2: 
Is there reasonable assurance that X device is effective for indication(s) A (and B, etc.)? 
Voting Question 3: 
Do the benefits of X device for indication(s) A (and B, etc.) outweigh the risks of device X for indication(s) A (and B, etc.)? 
Panel members should be asked to state how they answered each question and to explain their answers. After voting, the panel may discuss whether changes to labeling, restrictions on use, longer term follow-up, or other controls that may alter the benefit vs. risk calculus, in order to give the sponsor constructive feedback on their submission. 
If the evidence provided is insufficient to allow for any of the determinations, the panel member should state this as the reason for answering “no.” A description of any remedial or mitigating studies or actions should be given. 
6.5.3 Indications for Use and Voting 
For Premarket Submission panel meetings, the Indications for Use to be voted on should be the Indications for Use as described in the Executive Summary in the Panel Pack provided by CDRH prior to the meeting (see Section 5.1 above). The Executive Summary relies on what was submitted by the sponsor in the original submission, unless the submission was amended in a subsequent submission. Proposed changes or modifications to the Indications for Use and what would be needed to support such changes may be discussed during the panel deliberation portion of the meeting; however, the vote itself should be on the Indications for Use as stated in the Executive Summary. If the original Indications for Use presented to the panel receives an unfavorable vote, a different Indications for Use may also be considered by the panel, at the discretion of the Panel Chair, with input from the sponsor, and upon concurrence from the CDRH representative. The members of the panel should be afforded an opportunity to explain their vote. After voting, the panel may discuss whether a change in the Indications for Use could have an impact on the benefit vs. risk calculus. Such discussion should also include what additional pre- or post-market data or scientific information, if any, would be needed to pursue new Indications for Use. 
6.6 Teleconference Panel Meetings 
Panel meetings may be held by conference telephone call as provided for in 21 CFR 14.22(g). Teleconference panel meetings will generally be limited to discussion topics that are anticipated to be brief. They are authorized when the meeting will be conducted to confirm the recommendations from a previously held traditional open panel meeting or where time does not permit a meeting to be held at a central location. In addition, teleconference panels may be held to speed the classification of multiple device types—in 
particular, classification of lower risk device types which are no longer in general use or for which significant valid scientific evidence exists, and for which the proposed classification is expected to be non-controversial and readily confirmed by the panel. 
For teleconference panel meetings, some or all of the panel members, other than the Panel Chair, may participate from remote locations. Multiple topics requiring participation by different panel members may be combined into a single day. The Panel Chair and DFO will manage the deliberation, question and answer, and OPH portions of the meeting consistent with the requirements of 21 CFR Part 14. As described in 21 CFR 14.22(g), interested parties will be afforded an opportunity to participate in the meeting at a conference room located in Washington, DC, or Rockville, MD, or the immediate vicinity, and should be afforded the opportunity to provide statements to the panel as described in 6.2 and 6.3 above. 
For more information about the procedures of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, see Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm284651.htm#s3)
 The Medical Devices Advisory Committee is comprised of the following advisory panels: 1) Anesthesiology and Respiratory Therapy Devices; 2) Circulatory System Devices; 3) Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices; 4) Dental Products; 5) Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices; 6) Gastroenterology and Urology Devices; 7) General and Plastic Surgery Devices; 8) General Hospital and Personal Use Devices; 9) Hematology and Pathology Devices; 10) Immunology Devices; 11) Microbiology Devices; 12) Molecular and Clinical Genetics; 13) Neurological Devices; 14) Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices; 15) Ophthalmic Devices; 16) Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices; and 17) Radiological Devices.
FDA is required by statute to take a complete premarket approval (PMA) application and a proposed product development protocol (PDP) to a panel upon the request of a submitter, unless FDA finds that the information submitted substantially duplicates information which has previously been reviewed by a panel. See FD&C Act § 515(c)(3)(B) & (f)(2)(B), 21 U.S.C. § 360e(c)(3)(B) & (f)(2)(B). 
FDA is also required to seek panel input as part of an action to call for PMAs for a preamendments class III device. See FD&C Act § 515(b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 360e(b)(1). Because this type of panel meeting does not concern a specific premarket submission, it typically falls under the “Regulatory Issues” meeting category rather than the “Premarket Submission” category. 
No FDA advisory committee meeting may be entirely closed to the public. 21 CFR 14.27(a). However, sometimes a portion of a meeting will be closed to the public under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)) and 21 CFR 14.27. This section only applies to briefing materials prepared for the open portions of panel meetings.
For purposes of this guidance, “sponsor” refers to a party who submits a premarket submission that is the subject of a Premarket Submission panel meeting—for example, the 510(k) submitter or the PMA applicant. 
Although the Agency-wide guidance (“Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members”) recommends that the Agency provide its briefing materials to the sponsor between 21 and 14 business days before the meeting, for Premarket Submission meetings, CDRH intends to provide the sponsor with its proposed materials earlier than that in order to allow additional time for sponsor input. 
When other types of submissions are the subject of a Premarket Submission panel meeting, questions relevant to those submissions should be presented to the panel.
7 References 
  1.   Medical Devices Advisory Committee, Information and Materials: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/ default.htm
  1.   Waivers: Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff: Public Availability of Advisory Committee Members' Financial Interest Information and Waivers http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM295372.pdf
  2.   Open Public Hearing: Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff: The Open Public Hearing at FDA Advisory Committee Meetings http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM236144.pdf
  3.   Panel Packs/Freedom of Information: Guidance for Industry Advisory Committee Meetings - Preparation and Public Availability of Information Given to Advisory Committee Members http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125650.pdf
  4.   Conflict of Interest: Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff on Procedures for Determining Conflict of Interest and Eligibility for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125646.pdf
  5.   Voting Procedures: Guidance for FDA Advisory Committee Members adn FDA Staff: Voting Procedures at Advisory Committee Meetings http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125641.pdf
  6.   Criteria for Panel Meetings: Guidance for the Public and FDA Staff on Convening Advisory Committee Meetings - Draft http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM125651.pdf
  7.   Dispute Resolution Panel: Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocument s/ucm284651.htm#s3