• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

MassDevice

The Medical Device Business Journal — Medical Device News & Articles | MassDevice

  • Latest News
  • Technologies
    • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    • Cardiovascular
    • Orthopedics
    • Neurological
    • Diabetes
    • Surgical Robotics
  • Business & Finance
    • Wall Street Beat
    • Earnings Reports
    • Funding Roundup
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Initial Public Offering (IPO)
    • Legal News
    • Personnel Moves
    • Medtech 100 Stock Index
  • Regulatory & Compliance
    • Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
    • Recalls
    • 510(k)
    • Pre-Market Approval (PMA)
    • MDSAP
    • Clinical Trials
  • Special Content
    • Special Reports
    • In-Depth Coverage
    • DeviceTalks
  • Podcasts
    • MassDevice Fast Five
    • DeviceTalks Weekly
    • OEM Talks
      • AbbottTalks
      • Boston ScientificTalks
      • DeviceTalks AI
      • IntuitiveTalks
      • MedtechWOMEN Talks
      • MedtronicTalks
      • Neuro Innovation Talks
      • Ortho Innovation Talks
      • Structural Heart Talks
      • StrykerTalks
  • Resources
    • About MassDevice
    • DeviceTalks
    • Newsletter Signup
    • Leadership in Medtech
    • Manufacturers & Suppliers Search
    • MedTech100 Index
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • Whitepapers
    • Voices
Home » Alternatives to scrapping 510(k)

Alternatives to scrapping 510(k)

August 11, 2011 By MassDevice Contributors Network

By Merrill Goozner

The Institute of Medicine report on medical device regulation released two weeks ago called for scrapping the 510(k) process that allows for market entry of new devices if they’re shown to be “substantially equivalent” to already marketed devices. In a Perspective in today’s New England Journal of Medicine, committee members David R. Challoner, M.D. of the University of Florida and William W. Vodra, J.D., an attorney at Arnold & Porter, reiterated the reasoning of the report:

Merrill Goozner

Today, we have a system in which a new moderate-risk device can enter the market because it is substantially equivalent to another device that may have been cleared for marketing 2 years ago because its manufacturer showed that it was substantially equivalent to yet another device cleared in 2003, and so on, all the way back to a device that was being marketed when the law was enacted in 1976. But that original device might never have been assessed for safety or effectiveness, nor perhaps would any subsequent ones in the family tree. . . We decided that the 510(k) process cannot be transformed into a premarketing evaluation of safety and effectiveness as long as the standard for clearance is substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device.

Alas, the Food and Drug Administration immediately rejected the committee’s conclusion that the entire process be scrapped. In a second Perspective, Gregory D. Curfman, M.D., and Rita F. Redberg, M.D., editors at NEJM and the Archives of Internal Medicine, respectively, lamented the FDA’s position and offered an alternative approach. They wrote:

  • The 510(k) process, if not abolished entirely, should at least never be used in class III devices, defined as those whose failure would pose an immediate risk to health or safety. These would include most implanted orthopedic and cardiovascular devices that are of most concern;
  • Ban the use of multiple predicate devices; and
  • Adopt a formal system of postmarketing surveillance for medical devices that includes registries to track device performance and their medical outcomes, careful tracking of patients, and mandatory disclosure of postmarketing safety data.

The FDA shouldn’t cave into industry pressure to abandon the report. The agency should use it as a stepping stone to adopting reforms along the lines recommended by Curfman and Redberg.

Collection of comprehensive data on device performance will have ramifications far beyond the safety issues that triggered the IOM’s reevaluation of the 510(k) process. It will provide critical information that will allow patients, physicians and payers to determine the relative value of new devices, which are always more expensive than the ones they replace. In the coming era of cost-controlled medicine, it makes no sense to pay for unproven “improved” devices.

Merrill Goozner is an award-winning journalist and author of “The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs” who writes regularly at Gooznews.com.

Filed Under: Food & Drug Administration (FDA), News Well Tagged With: 510(k) reforms, Gooz News, Institute of Medicine

More recent news

  • A new way to monitor glucose: Glucotrack explains 3-year CBGM implant technology
  • Dexcom continues advances in AI for CGM, type 2 diabetes awareness
  • Tandem continues to deliver more options, benefits for those with diabetes
  • Breaking: Sequel to launch twiist automated insulin delivery system next month
  • Dexcom shares U.S. report on CGM benefits for type 2 diabetes

Primary Sidebar

“md
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND STAY CONNECTED
Get the latest med device regulatory, business and technology news.

DeviceTalks Weekly

See More >

MEDTECH 100 Stock INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
MDO ad

Footer

MASSDEVICE MEDICAL NETWORK

DeviceTalks
Drug Delivery Business News
Medical Design & Outsourcing
Medical Tubing + Extrusion
Drug Discovery & Development
Pharmaceutical Processing World
MedTech 100 Index
R&D World
Medical Design Sourcing

DeviceTalks Webinars, Podcasts, & Discussions

Attend our Monthly Webinars
Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
Join our DeviceTalks Tuesdays Discussion

MASSDEVICE

Subscribe to MassDevice E-Newsletter
Advertise with us
About
Contact us

Copyright © 2025 · WTWH Media LLC and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media.

Privacy Policy