Thesis (S.M.)--Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, 2010. / Cataloged from PDF version of thesis. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 173-174). / Since the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, recent legislation has sought to establish performance goals and consistency in the regulatory review and clearance of new medical devices. Despite these goals, regulatory review times have varied dramatically for devices seeking clearance through the 510(k) pathway; devices that are by definition "substantially equivalent" to other devices previously cleared by the FDA and currently on the market. The goal of this thesis is to investigate the factors that impact the ability for a company to obtain a 510(k) clearance in a predictable timeframe and assess the most important factors that influence time to clearance. The Medical Device industry is a dynamic and rapidly evolving sector that presents complex challenges to regulatory oversight. The 510(k) program and larger device regulatory process has endured the test of time and is well structured to address these challenges. This research focuses on the 7,481 510(k) "substantially equivalent" clearances during the period from October 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010 (FY08 - Q3FY10) in order to analyze the variables that impact clearance times. By testing various hypotheses about the most important factors I aim to provide the device community with the data and suggestions for improving confidence around a particular 510(k) submission's likely approval time. I performed subset analyses on the dataset, segmenting clearances by the type of 510(k) (traditional, abbreviated, and special), clinical category, fiscal year of clearance, use of 3rd party review, submission volume, and product diversity according to clinical category. The results show a distinct increase in clearance time from FY08 to FY10 and suggest that recent scrutiny of the FDA premarket review process may be affecting the efficiency of the Agency FDA review process for medical devices. Further, the 3rd party review program is under-utilized with only 14%, on average, of eligible devices gaining clearance through this process. Through a discussion of two specific critiques of the 510(k) process, namely a recent Government Accountability Office study and an article by the Public Citizen (a public advocacy group), the potential implications of regulatory reform is explored from both a policy and industry perspective. / by Andrew J Koert. / S.M.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:MIT/oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/62522 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Koert, Andrew J. (Andrew James) |
| Contributors | T. (Teo) Forcht Dagi and Farzad Parsaie., Harvard University--MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology., Harvard University--MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. |
| Publisher | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| Source Sets | M.I.T. Theses and Dissertation |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 174 p., application/pdf |
| Rights | M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission., http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 |
Page generated in 0.011 seconds