Abstract:Matthew J Swanson, 1, 2 Colin L Uyeki, 1 Sarah R Yoder, 1 Sanket S Dhruva, 3 Jennifer E Miller, 4 Joseph S Ross 4– 6 1 Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, North Haven, CT, USA; 2 Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY, USA; 3 Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA; 4 Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 5 Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA; 6 Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA Correspondence: Matthew J Swanson, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, 370 Bassett Road, North Haven, CT, 06473-1908, USA, Email Background: Representation of diverse study populations in pivotal clinical trials for medical devices and subgroup analyses for demographic groups to explore differences in safety and effectiveness are essential to understanding the benefits and risks in diverse populations. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken many steps to improve transparency and subgroup analyses over the past decade, but there has not been a recent evaluation of demographic reporting and subgroup analyses. Methods: We reviewed all FDA Premarket Approvals for high-risk cardiovascular devices from 2014 to 2022, focusing on pivotal studies supporting device approval. We abstracted detailed demographic data about the age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position of study participants. We also assessed the presence and results of subgroup analyses to understand the safety and effectiveness of devices across trial populations. Results: Analysis of 92 pivotal studies revealed that age and sex were reported in 96.7% of the studies, while race and ethnicity were reported in 71.7% and 58.7%, respectively. However, only 7.9% of studies explicitly detailed the participation of older adults (≥ 65 years) and no studies reported patients' socioeconomic position. Subgroup analyses by sex were conducted in 70.7% of studies, with 12.3% reporting significant differences. In contrast, analyses by race and ethnicity were performed in only 12.0% of the studies, with 9.1% reporting significant differences. Conclusion: Approximately one-third of pivotal studies for high-risk cardiovascular devices approved by the FDA from 2014 to 2022 did not report the race of study participants, nearly 40% did not report ethnicity, and more than 90% did not report the participation of older adults (≥ 65 years). Subgroup analyses were infrequently conducted by age or race and ethnicity. There is a need for better trial demographic reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses in premarketing studies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices for all patients. Keywords: FDA, clinical trial, cardiovascular device, diversity, inclusion, equity Clinical trial diversity has long been an area of concern, with significant underrepresentation of key patient demographic groups such as older adults, women, and racial and ethnic minority patients. 1–5 This underrepresentation has great clinical significance, impeding the generalizability of trial results. Policymakers, recognizing the criticality of this issue, have taken substantial steps toward improvement. The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA) in 2022 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health's 2022 strategic plan underscore legislative and regulatory commitments to enhancing trial diversity, including mandates for sex and gender analyses in device development. 6,7 Efforts to promote inclusive representation in clinical trials have a history of legislative support. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) in 2012 and the subsequent FDA action plan in 2014 to enhance demographic data collection highlight a commitment to diversity and the accurate assessment of medical interventions across all population segments. 8,9 Recognizing the unique challenges and opportunities presented by medical devices and drugs is crucial for designing inclusive trials. Medical devices, due to their specific applications and complexities, and drugs, benefiting from a wider application context, face distinct barriers to achieving diverse recruitment. Yet, the goal remains the same: to ensure trials reflect the broad population for reliable generalizability. Understanding the distinctions between medical device and drug trials is key to addressing population diversity. Drug trials, organized into four phases, ass -Abstract Truncated-

Medical device report analyses from MAUDE: Device and patient outcomes, adverse events, and sex-based differential effects

An evaluation of the Manufacturer And User Facility Device Experience database that inspired the United States Food and Drug Administration's Reclassification of transvaginal mesh

[Analysis on Evaluation of Medical Device Adverse Events Monitoring and Some Factors Influencing MDAE's Reporting by Medical Personnels].

Real-World Experience With the Angio-Seal Closure Device: Insights From Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database

Underreporting of complications following AF ablation: Comparison of the manufacturer and user facility device experience FDA database and a voluntary invitation-based registry: The POTTER-AF 3 study

Quality evaluation of field safety notices of medical devices, across EU and non-EU countries

Barriers in reporting adverse effects of medical devices: a literature review

Analysis of 408 Total Ankle Arthroplasty Adverse Events Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2018

Post-market clinical research conducted by medical device manufacturers: a cross-sectional survey

Reporting of Demographics & Subgroup Analyses in Premarketing Studies of FDA Approved High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices, 2014–2022

AI as a Medical Device Adverse Event Reporting in Regulatory Databases: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Thirty-five Years of Reporting of Sex and Race in Clinical Studies of U.S. FDA-Authorized Orthopaedic Devices

Security and privacy qualities of medical devices: an analysis of FDA postmarket surveillance

Health-care Professionals' Perception toward Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance Practices: A Cross-sectional Study in India

The Challenges for Manufacturers of the Increased Clinical Evaluation in the European Medical Device Regulations: A Quantitative Study

A review of the literature on the new European Medical Device Regulations requirements for increased clinical evaluation

Trend Analysis of Inpatient Medical Adverse Events in Taiwan (2014–2020)—Findings From Taiwan Patient Safety Reporting System

Analysis of 408 Total Ankle Arthroplasty Adverse Events Reported to the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015-2018

Quality and Utility of European Cardiovascular and Orthopaedic Registries for the Regulatory Evaluation of Medical Device Safety and Performance Across the Implant Lifecycle: A Systematic Review

Adverse events of the endoscopic over-the-scope clips and cutters: a Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database analysis

Device-Related Adverse Events During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Review of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database