Medical device active surveillance of spontaneous reports: A literature review of signal detection methods

Abstract

Purpose: The collection and analysis of real-world data for the active monitoring of medical device performance and safety has become increasingly important. Spontaneous reports, such as those in the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA's) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE), provide early warning of potential issues with marketed devices. This review synthesizes the current literature on medical device surveillance signal detection and provides a framework for application of methods to active surveillance of spontaneous reports.Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases were systematically searched up to January 2019. Additionally, five methods articles from pharmacovigilance were added that had potential applications to medical devices.Results: Among 105 articles included, the most common source of data (84%) was registries; median time between data collection and publication was 8 years. Surgical procedure outcome signal detection articles comprised 83% while 14% were on device outcome signal detection. The most common family of methods cited (70%) was Sequential Probability Ratio.Conclusion: Application of any signal detection algorithm requires careful consideration of influential factors, data limitations, and algorithmic assumptions.We recommend approaches using disproportionality, statistical process control, and sequential probability tests and provide R packages to further development efforts. The small number of published examples suggest that further development of statistical methods and technological solutions to analyze large amounts of data for device safety and performance is needed. Fundamental differences in products, data infrastructure, and the regulatory landscape suggest that medical device vigilance requires its own body of research distinct from pharmacovigilance.

Untitled

“…O estudo conclui que essas iniciativas são cruciais para permitir a incorporação de RWD na tomada de decisão. Chung et al (2020) realizaram uma revisão da literatura sobre os métodos de detecção de sinais de notificações espontâneas de dispositivos médicos no cenário regulatório. Esse é um exemplo clássico de RWD, consolidado entre as agências reguladoras internacionais, sobre o desempenho pós-mercado de dispositivos médicos a longo prazo em condições reais de uso.…”

Evaluations of statistical methods for outlier detection when benchmarking in clinical registries: a systematic review

“…The clinical significance, as opposed to statistical significance, and implications of results are also of importance when benchmarking and classifying outliers in clinical registries. Despite these considerations, and the large number of clinical registries conducting benchmarking using a variety of methods, little research has evaluated the best statistical methods of outlier identification within registry settings, as well as the generalisability of methods to different registries 32. The identification of optimal methods is necessary as different methods have the potential to provide vastly different outcomes.…”

“…Despite these considerations, and the large number of clinical registries conducting benchmarking using a variety of methods, little research has evaluated the best statistical methods of outlier identification within registry settings, as well as the generalisability of methods to different registries. 32 The identification of optimal methods is necessary as different methods have the potential to provide vastly different outcomes. This will allow for consistency and reduce the rate of false positive and negative results.…”

Materiovigilance in Perspective: Understanding Its Concept and Practice in the Global Healthcare System

“…While the use of medical devices is increasing, the concerns regarding their safety are also rising. Like medicines, the post-marketing data of the applications and effects of medical devices on healthcare are also vital sources of evidence to ensure their safety and performance characteristics [4]. It is usual to report adverse events during phases mandatorily I to III of clinical trials and only voluntarily during post-marketing periods (i.e., phase IV clinical trials), but under-reporting is still common during the post-marketing stage [5].…”