United States: Classification: When "Equivalence" Means "Safety"

The FDA must clear most medical devices before they can be sold to the public. This article refutes a claim that the FDA's process for clearing devices does not provide the "reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness" Congress intended. The claim, which was first suggested in Medtronic v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), arose because Congress initially grandfathered devices sold before 1976 and then allowed new devices to be cleared if they were "equivalent" to pre-1976 devices. But after 1976, the FDA used medical panels to "classify" devices. Today, most devices are cleared because they are equivalent to post- 1976 devices whose safety and effectiveness were independently assessed when they were classified. That assessment provides the reasonable assurance Congress requires and makes the Lohr dictum no longer applicable.

The many well-reasoned explanations as to why the Lohr dictum should no longer be followed have overlooked a fundamental question, which, if asked, greatly strengthens the argument for distinguishing Lohr.

That 1996 Supreme Court dictum declared that the "focus" of most of the FDA's medical device regulation process was "not safety." The Court said this because Congress had allowed the FDA to clear for sale new devices "equivalent" to others that had "never been formally reviewed ... for safety or efficacy" because they were sold before the medical device law went into effect in 19762. In other words, Congress had grandfathered them.

The idea that the FDA was not focusing on safety is, to say the least, peculiar. Congress has charged it with a duty to provide "reasonable assurance" that medical devices are safe and effective.3 In recent years, commentators have offered a number of reasons why the FDA today is in fact providing that assurance for the devices it clears. They have pointed to 1990 statutory amendments that strengthened the requirements for clearance and to the FDA's pronouncements about that process.4 But the idea that the clearance process "is focused on equivalence, not safety" has been hard to shake.

These commentators have simply assumed that all clearance through what is called the 510(k) process is based on pre-1976 devices, or, as the General Accounting Office has put it, "iterations" of those devices.5 In other words, clearance of a new device might be based on equivalence to a post-1976 device, but that device would, in turn, have been cleared as being equivalent to a pre-1976 device, all without any stand-alone look at safety and effectiveness. In answer to the question "equivalent to what?" they have assumed the answer was ultimately a pre-1976 device. But both the governing statute and the regulatory history provide a different answer for many, if not most, medical devices. In the Act, Congress instructed the FDA to convene medical panels to classify devices. And where after 1976 the FDA classified a device or group of devices as presenting a low or moderate risk, the statute authorized clearance based on equivalence to the classified device.6 So for these devices, the answer to the question "equivalent to what?" is quite different. It is "equivalent to a device classified by the FDA as being safe and effective."

In order to look at how the classification process has worked, it is helpful to examine the governing law as it has been applied to one particular product group, surgical mesh.

The scheme Congress enacted in 1976 and revised in 1990 requires the FDA to place devices in classes according to the amount of regulation needed to provide "reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness." Those that need the least are in Class I. Those that may additionally need only what are called "special controls" are placed in Class II. And those whose risks are sufficiently great or unknown are placed in Class III and subjected to special scrutiny and regulation. See 21 U.S.C. § 360c(a)(1). But the purpose in all cases is to provide that reasonable assurance.

Congress in 1976 instructed the FDA to create medical panels to classify devices. The panel members, paid for their work, were to be persons who "possess skill in the use of, or experience in the development, manufacture, or utilization" of the devices. 21 U.S.C. § 360c(b)(2). They were to be organized "according to the various fields of clinical medicine and fundamental science in which devices intended for human use are used." 21 U.S.C. § 360c(c) (1). Panels had to explain why Class III treatment was not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy if they were evaluating devices to be implanted in the human body. 21 U.S.C. § 360c(c)(2). Before the FDA adopted a recommendation, it was to publish the panel recommendations in the Federal Register and invite public comment. Again, if the FDA decided not to place an implantable device in Class III, it was to provide "a full statement of the reasons." 21 U.S.C. § 360c(d)(2)(B).

So it was with surgical mesh.

In 1978, the FDA assigned three classification panels the job of evaluating surgical mesh: General and Plastic Surgery, Orthopedic Device, and Gastroenterology and Urology. They were to classify devices based on "[p]anel members' personal knowledge of, and clinical experience with, the devices under review." 47 Fed. Reg. 2810, 2812 (Jan. 19, 1982). In their deliberations, they considered risks such as infection, foreign body reaction and discomfort. Id.

In 1982, the panels recommended that surgical mesh (21 CFR § 878.3300) be placed in Class II. Their report said that surgical meshes have "an established history of safe and effective use." 47 Fed. Reg. 2810, 2817 (Jan. 19, 1982). It said they "meet a generally accepted satisfactory level of tissue compatibility." Id. The panels cited medical literature to support their conclusions. See id. at 2817-2818.

The FDA tentatively agreed with the classification "because of the extensive clinical usage of surgical mesh over a long period of time and because there is sufficient information available to establish a performance standard that would provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device." Id. at 2817. The FDA noted that surgical meshes had then been in use for 20 years. See id. It cited three studies on the use of polypropylene mesh, and noted that one of them:

reported on 53 patients for the repair of incisional hernias with polypropylene mesh. During 8 years (1970- 1978), there was no operative mortality and the mesh had been uniformly well tolerated. The recurrence rate was found to be 11 percent, a distinct improvement over the era before the mesh was used.

Id. at 2817, citing Gerald M. Larson and Harold W. Harrower, Plastic Mesh Repair of Incisional Hernias, 135 American Journal of Surgery 559 (April 1978). That study declared that complications from use of mesh were "rarely serious," that mesh did not increase the frequency of wound infection," and that polypropylene mesh "does not appear to degrade or lose strength in patients." Larson et al., 135 American Journal of Surgery at 562. The FDA also cited an earlier one-year dog study that found a "minimal foreign body reaction" to the mesh.7 The FDA published the classification along with others and invited public comment.

In 1988, after reviewing the comments and holding public hearings, the FDA published the final classification of surgical mesh as Class II. 53 Fed. Reg. 23856 (June 24, 1988). It rejected a claim that Class II devices were not safe and effective until a performance standard was adopted. Id. at 23860. It reiterated that the "biocompatibility of [surgical mesh and certain other devices] "has been established through their successful use for a number of years" and "the probable benefit to health from proper use of these devices outweighs an[y] likelihood of illness or injury resulting from their use." Id. at 23861. With respect to surgical mesh, it said Class II performance standards might be needed, however, because "long-term biocompatibility" was still an issue. Id. at 23862.

In 1996, Ethicon, Inc. submitted a 510(k) notification for the sale of "Modified PROLENE* polypropylene nonabsorbable synthetic surgical mesh." See http://accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh (K963530)8. The predicate device was PROLENE* polypropylene mesh, which was identified as a "Class II Medical Device, 21 CFR §878.3300." The notification describes the product as being composed of knitted filaments "identical in composition" to that used in a suture product whose safety had been approved. It provides the labeling that will be used, including the statement that the material "is not absorbed nor is it subject to degradation or weakening by the action of tissue enzymes." It offers no clinical data, other than one 28-day animal test, but recites that the predicate mesh has "a long established history of safe clinical use as an implantable material." The FDA cleared the device.

So for this product, there was, contrary to Lohr, a formal expert panel and FDA review of safety and effectiveness, which led to classification of the predicate device. The determination by the FDA that the new product was equivalent in safety and effectiveness was thus an affirmative finding that the new device was, in fact, both safe and effective.

Given the prominent role that classification plays in the statute and in the history, it is worth asking why its role has been overlooked in the debate over Lohr. The closest any of the commentators on Lohr have come is to say that the FDA system "uses data" in the 510(k) notice to determine classification.9

For one thing, some Class III products may still be cleared based on equivalence to pre-1976 devices. Like the device at issue in Lohr, they have not been found safe enough to be placed in Class II, yet the FDA has still not required that they go through the approval process.10

Another potential problem is that the FDA, when it adopted a regulation identifying devices that qualified for predicate status, did not follow the simple statutory language, which says any post-1976 device "which has been classified in class I or II" can be a predicate.11 Instead it said devices which "have been reclassified from class III to class II or I," which is narrower and confusing. This is not a problem for surgical mesh, an implantable device, because Congress classified all implantable devices as Class III until a medical panel decided otherwise.13 But it suggests a narrower group than the statutory language would permit.

Another problem is that the FDA itself has not emphasized the importance of classification when it has defended the 510(k) process. It was only recently that it declared

[b]ecause devices are classified according to the level of regulatory control necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, classification of a new device through the 510(k) process requires FDA to determine the issues of safety and effectiveness presented by the new device. 14

Whatever the reason, when any court confronts the Lohr dictum, it needs to ask the question "equivalent to what?" If the answer is a device in a group that the FDA and its medical panels have classified as being safe and effective, then the dictum should be reversed, for in that circumstance "equivalence is safety."

And there is a broader point. Where Congress has told the FDA how to provide "reasonable assurance" of safety and effectiveness, and the FDA has done what Congress has instructed, it is not within the proper province of a court to disregard what the FDA has done simply because it disagrees with the methods Congress chose. Lohr was a peculiar case in which the FDA had not yet done what Congress had told it to do with a Class III product. But where the FDA has acted, its action should be respected. That should be true even when it has classified a device as being so safe as to be entirely exempt from the 510(k) or any other premarket review process.

Footnotes

1. Butler Snow LLP, Ridgeland, Miss. The firm represents Ethicon, Inc. in mesh litigation.

2. Medtronic Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 493 (1996).

3. 21 Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013).

4. See Ralph F. Hall and Michelle Mercer, Rethinking Lohr: does "SE" Mean Safe and Effective, Substantially Equivalent, or Both?, 13 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 737 (2012) (article "questions whether litigants and courts have ignored major statutory and regulatory changes"); James M. Flaherty Jr., Defending Substantial Equivalence: An Argument for the Continuing Validity of the 510(k) Premarket Notification Process, 63 Food & Drug L.J. 901, 907-916 (2008) (survey of statutory and regulatory changes). See also FDA, The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)]/ Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (2014) at p. 6 ("principles of safety and effectiveness underlie the substantial equivalence determination in every 510(k) review").

5. GAO, Medical Devices/ FDA Should Take Steps to Ensure That High-Risk Device Types Are Approved through the Most Stringent Premarket Review Process 13 (2009). 6. 21 U.S.C.§ 360c(f)(1)(A)(predicate device can be post-1976 device which "has been classified in class I or II").

7. Francis C. Usher, Hernia Repair with Knitted Polypropylene Mesh, 117 Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics 239, (1963). See also B.T. Casebolt, Use of Fabric Mesh in Abdominal Wall Defects, 72 Missouri Medicine 71 (1975) (evaluating 35 cases over periods of up to nine years).

8. The entire 510(k) can be found at Lewis v. Johnson & Johnson, United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, No. 2:2:12-cv-4301, Dkt. 128-17.

9. See Hall and Mercer, supra n.4 at 782 & n. 246 (referring to the "accompanying scientific data" in the 510(k) notice).

10. See n.4, supra.

11. 21 U.s.C. 360c(f)(1(A)(i).

12. 21 CFR § 807.92(a)(3).

13. 21 U.S.C. § § 513(c)(2)(C), (d)(2)(B).

14. FDA, The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications {510(k)]/Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (July 28, 2014).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions