Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35138547›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022

Experts' Views on FDA Regulatory Standards for Drug and High-Risk Medical Devices: Implications for Patient Care.

Sanket S Dhruva, Jonathan J Darrow, Aaron S Kesselheim, Rita F Redberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Advancing Health Equity in the Cardiovascular Device Life Cycle.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025
    Review
  5. Physician-Patient Communication about Novel Drugs and High-Risk Medical Devices.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sanket S DhruvaPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. sanket.dhruva@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0674-2032
Jonathan J DarrowProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rita F RedbergPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

UCSF Career Development Program in Implementation Research in Heart and Lung DiseasesK12HL138046 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BIBBINS-DOMINGO, KIRSTEN, CATTAMANCHI, ADITHYA · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL138046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrugs and high-risk medical devices are increasingly likely to receive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval through expedited pathways, which has implications for informed treatment consent (i.e., consent in clinical practice).

objectiveTo obtain expert opinion about the clinical and ethical implications of the increasing availability of new drugs and devices approved through expedited development and regulatory review pathways.

designQualitative study using individual semi-structured videoconference interviews.

participantsNational leaders in medicine, ethics, and law (n=12) with expertise in medical product regulation, payor policymaking, bioethics, physician practice, patient advocacy, public health expertise/advocacy, clinical trials, the pharmaceutical and device industry, institutional review board oversight, and real-world evidence. MAIN MEASURES: Principal themes in 3 domains: expedited regulatory pathways, physician and patient understanding of and reliance on FDA approval, and informed treatment consent. KEY

resultsRespondents pointed out that more common use of expedited pathways translates to increased reliance on surrogate measures, some with uncertain clinical significance. While expedited development and review can have advantages, participants expressed worry that physicians were unaware when medical products were expedited and did not communicate about uncertainties in knowledge about new drug or device approvals effectively with patients. Many participants felt that informed treatment consent discussions about new drugs or devices should include some explanations of expedited pathways and use of surrogate measures.

conclusionsExperts identified advantages of expediting development and of FDA flexibility in applying its standards to new drugs and medical devices, but highlighted concerns that patients may not be adequately informed about the risks of shorter review times or about uncertainties in the evidence that result. There is a need to identify approaches to ensure effective clinical use of drugs and devices when approved through expedited pathways.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalEthics Committees, ResearchHumansPatient CarePharmaceutical PreparationsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationPharmaceutical Preparationsexpedited approvalFDA regulatory standardsinformed consent

Identifiers

PMID35138547
PMCPMC9708961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.