Reporting of Demographics & Subgroup Analyses in Premarketing Studies of FDA Approved High-Risk Cardiovascular Devices, 2014–2022
Matthew Swanson,Colin Uyeki,Sarah Yoder,Sanket Dhruva,Jennifer Miller,Joseph Ross
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/mder.s457152
2024-04-30
Medical Devices Evidence and Research
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-
English Else