Drugs vs Devices 1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    1/10

    DRUGS VS. DEVICES

    Jeng Mah & Gosford A Sawyerr

    Sept 16, 2005

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    2/10

    OUTLINE

    Design Challenges

    Analysis Issues: Device Database Challenges

    Challenges with Diagnostics

    Post-marketing surveillance

    Working with Clinical Investigators

    Regulatory Landscape

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    3/10

    DESIGN ISSUES

    Double-blind device trials not common with device trials

    Single blind possible within device type

    Difficulty in going head to head with competitor devicesPre-market trials tend to be simpler to demonstratesafety with regard to intended use

    Compliance is easier to measure in device trials than indrug trials

    In medical devices, single arm trials with ObjectivePerformance Criteria are used to determine safety ofleads

    Single arm pharma trials may appear in early Phase IIwhere the objective may be to rule out drugs with littlepossibility of clinical benefit (e.g., two-stage designs; ref:Simon)

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    4/10

    DESIGN ISSUES (2)

    Dose of drug may be an issue; size of devicemay be an issue

    Implanting carries greater risk than prescribing adrug

    Device trials offer more opportunity to beBayesian lots of prior information re:pacemakers and defibrillators

    Device implant studies drive revenue muchmore than prescription drug trials

    Post-market device trials are important inproviding clinical evidence for physicians,payors and patients

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    5/10

    DESIGN ISSUES (3)

    More precise endpoint determination due toelectronic information storage on device

    Drug trial endpoints subjective at timesConsideration of recurrent episodes mayprovide increased statistical power and hencefewer patients

    Some endpoint definitions in device trials mayvary from device to device (e.g., AF burdencalculation)

    Memory capacity may lead to missing episodes

    Device date stamp resets may lead to

    inaccurate information re: endpoints

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    6/10

    ANALYSIS ISSUES

    Analysis cohort may differ from full randomizedset: e.g., analysis of proportion of VT/VFepisodes appropriately treated may include onlypatients with episodesDevice storage limitations may miss episodes

    Heterogeneity in occurrence of episodesbetween patients needs to be considered in

    choice of statistical method so that few patientsdo not drive the results

    Sensitivity and specificity defined only relative towhat the device records and hence are biasedestimates

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    7/10

    CHALLENGES WITH

    DIAGNOSTICSThresholds (cutpoints) which determinediagnostic action need to be established a priori(in drug trials retrospective analysis may bepossible to determine sensitivity to variousdefinitions)

    Co-development of drug with diagnostic difficult(studying two drugs simultaneously notnecessarily at same level of difficulty) see FDA Concept Paper:

    http://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/pharmacoconceptfn.pdf

    Sensitivity and specificity issues critical

    Clinical utility of test drug only trials do not

    have this challenge

    http://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/pharmacoconceptfn.pdfhttp://www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/pharmacoconceptfn.pdf
  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    8/10

    POST-MARKETING

    SURVEILLANCEIn both device and drug trials,registry/observational studies can play a key

    role in better understanding of endpointsPossible to trace all patients with device:problematic in drugs

    Data from return products, MDRs andregistry studies can assist in betterassessment of system longevity and adversedevice effects Extent of exposure difficult to measure for allpatients who may have taken a drug

    MDR analysis may help trend analysis

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    9/10

    WORKING WITH CLINICAL

    INVESTIGATORS

    Strong partnership between device companypersonnel and implanting physicians (EP,

    Cardiologist, etc.) Development of study design highly collaborativewith PI

    Delivery of device at implant and device

    programming requires participation by companypersonnel

    Steering committee actively involved inassessment of study and publication

    Events adjudication by clinicians on periodic basis

  • 7/29/2019 Drugs vs Devices 1

    10/10

    REGULATORY PROCESS

    Drugs: INDs, NDAs, sNDAs etc.

    Devices/Diagnostics IDEs, 510(k)s, PMAs, PMA-Ss etc.