Investigations into Johnson & Johnson's marketing practice - the ongoing saga of unregulated medical devices

One thing has led to another as the US Department of Justice launched an investigation into the marketing practices of the large medical device manufacturer Johnson & Johnson. At the heart of it is the number of recalled hip replacement products since 2010. Gigamole has blogged about this before.

Do not for one moment believe this will put a dent into J&J's marketing strategies. The company is no stranger to these financial penalties. It, like many other companies, have considerable sums of money set aside to cater for these penalties. After all these, Gigamole is sure the company will still be in the black. Two years ago, J&J was forced to pay off US$78 million for having paid bribes and kickbacks. Apparently bribing orthopaedic surgeons is a common practice among device manufacturers. In a report in the Archives of Medicine in 2011, the authors reported on 5 device manufacturers (Zimmer, DePuy Orthopaedics, Biomet, Smith & Nephew and Stryker) who had paid out, in 2007 alone, US$198 million to 939 orthopaedic surgeons.

Which is why medical devices need to be regulated. HSA is being very unwise in leaving medical devices unregulated, because in so doing, they are leaving the patient-consumer at the mercy of the device manufacturers. It is foolish and naive to believe that industry have anything else on their agenda than to generate profit for their shareholders.

To date however, the problems of the recalled De Puy hip replacement devices in Singapore remain unresolved. The HSA appears unwilling to take a strong public position about this. And patient-consumers remain unprotected.

Gigamole wonders when HSA is going to do the right thing?

Smith & Nephew R3 recall - MHRA advisory

Here's a follow up of the Smith & Nephew R3 acetabular system that Gigamole had highlighted a while back. The UK regulators, MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) has now issued an advisory about the recall. Their advice is pretty similar to the FDA advisory for the DePuy ASR implant recall.

All patients, symptomatic or not, should undergo MRI or ultrasound scanning. They should be followed for the lifetime of the implant in the body. Blood levels should be checked for cobalt and chromium levels. If either scans are abnormal, or metal levels are rising, surgical revision should be considered.

HSA meanwhile is maintaining their wall of silence.

Another medical device bites the dust - the Smith & Nephew R3 acetabular system

Here we go again. Now it's the Smith & Nephew Acetabular System, being voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer, Smith & Nephew Surgical Pty Ltd. Here is an announcement carried through the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). In 2010, the company had actually been issued a warning letter by the FDA about non-compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice. Doesn't this sound similar to the recent mess about the DePuy hip implant recall?

Well, now they finally have to issue a voluntary recall of the hip implant prosthesis, after unusually high failures recorded in Australia and UK. Launched in 2007, apparently about 7700 of these metal liners have been used globally. There is no record of how many of these metal upon metal implants have been used in Singapore itself. To date, it is uncertain how this recall is being implemented in Singapore. One of the recognized problems with metal on metal implants is the potential for erosion and resultant cobalt and chromium poisoning. The recommendation now is for patients who have had such implants to be subjected to life-long screening for toxicity.

So more questions for the HSA:

a] Do we know how many of these implants have been used in Singapore?
b] Do we have a record of patients who have received these implants, and are there processes in place to recall these patients for observation and toxicological screening?
c] How is this being tracked? How are patients expected to know?
d] Why is there no public dissemination of this information? Is this recall being implemented at all in Singapore?

More loopy unregulated medical devices horror stories - the Myxo annuloplasty ring

Gigamole had posted previously on the Edwards SAPIEN heart valve operation recently carried out at the National Heart Centre. It seems that the Edwards Lifesciences company has been getting into all kinds of problems recently also with respect to their Myxo annuloplasty ring. (Online references at the end of this post)

Essentially, the problem was triggered by the complaints from one patient at the Northwestern University research hospital, who claimed that the valve that was inserted into her heart in 2006 was not a FDA approved device, and she was not made aware that it was an experimental option. Furthermore, the surgeon who operated on her was an inventor of the valve and also received royalties from the marketing of the device. The fallout from her complaints have been significant and protracted. Although the university has denied any wrong doing, the patient's position has been supported by another of her doctors at Northwestern.

The background information, very simply outlined here, about this saga, are as follows:
a] In 2001, the FDA apparently rubber-stamped the industry's petition to reclassify heart valve annuloplasty rings to a lower risk category so that it can qualify for the 510(k) regulatory loophole. This meant that the industry can avoid doing clinical trials of an innovation if it can be shown to be insignificantly different from an earlier invention. Edwards Lifesciences used this loophole to launch their Myxo annuloplasty rings, even though they had filed for patents documenting significant differences from older versions.
b] Consequently, at the time the patient received the implant, the FDA did not even know of its existence. The FDA says it therefore never gave any approval. If it is an unapproved device, it should be regarded as an experimental device. The company and the university says it is not experimental, and that it did not require FDA approval under the 510(k) loophole. Meanwhile the surgeon has published the data as part of a clinical study.

The controversy continues to brew and has provoked cries for the FDA to review its approval procedures for medical devices.

Further readings here:
http://www.theheart.org/article/1230079.dohttp://www.theheart.org/article/960385.do http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-05-22/health/ct-met-medical-devices-20110521_1_annuloplasty-rings-faulty-heart-valve-diana-zuckerman
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126151643854401921.html http://www.medicaldevicestoday.com/2009/07/medical-device-fda-510k-policy-modifications-faces-mounting-scrutiny-.html

What have all these got to do with us here in small, faraway Singapore?

For starters, we should not be too over-reliant on decisions made by FDA, and should develop our own opinions on the matter. This is not to say we have to duplicate all the evaluations, but merely we need to scrutinize all innovative medical devices to form our own opinion as to how much pre-marketing data is required. The FDA is wrong to say "... companies, not the agency, are best qualified to determine whether modifications affect a device's safety or effectiveness." Companies are motivated by self interest. Mostly of the commercial sort. Interestingly the HSA has a pdf file on this Myxo ring, but the file is mysteriously not accessible.

Secondly, doctors do not have the inalienable right to stick all kinds of experimental devices into patients with firstly getting ethics approval, and regulatory approval. It is unclear how many similar annuloplasty rings have been used on our patients without notification and approval of the HSA, or even ethics committees. It remains unclear whether the previously blogged about SAPIENS tricuspid valve prosthesis was approved by the ethics committee as an experimental procedure, since it was not an approved medical device.

Thirdly, proper informed consent by the patient is required. Gigamole notes the favorable developments recently to develop better informed consent procedures. This has been long overdue. Gigamole hopes that the consent process will make the distinction between routine accepted practice and experimental procedures using methods that have not been approved by the HSA. Patients are not all willing to be guinea pigs.

Just a parting trivia...... The company Edwards Lifesciences makes exciting new valves here in small faraway Singapore. Their factory in Changi North Crescent, opened in 2008.

Regulation of medical devices? What shocking news?

Woke up this morning to the shocking news of HSA's intention to regulate medical devices. More correctly,  the shocking news of the doctors' responses to the impending regulations. What crap!

Regulation of medical devices have lagged far behind that for pharmaceuticals, and regulations have been long overdue. While pharmaceuticals require extensive testing for safety and efficacy, medical devices have escaped such scrutiny. As a result many poor quality products have been inflicted on unsuspecting patients. These range from breast implants, stents, artificial joints and various other prostheses. (Consumer Reports reviews this problem with reference to a report from the Institute of Medicine. 4 types of devices were singled out - surgical meshes, lap-bands, hip implants and cardiac devices.)

Recently, the French Company making the Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP) gel breast implants were hit by a major scandal when it was discovered that they had been using industrial grade silicone instead of medical grade ones, leading to the company going into liquidation. Of greater concern than the financial woes of the company was the exposure of unsuspecting women to the increased risk of ruptures of the poor quality implants.

Will the new regulations slow down the utilization of medical devices? Without doubt. But this slow down is necessary until manufacturers and doctors get used to dealing with public expectations of quality. Currently device failure rates are not even being monitored so no one has any idea of of how many faulty devices breakdown or fail.

HSA's regulations are both timely and essential for the protection of consumer safety, and we should welcome them. On the other hand, our doctors' hysterical lamentations that these regulations will only increase their practice inefficiencies and reduce the quality of medical care are misplaced, and sound totally self-serving.

Invisible Disease? - surgical revisions

I had posted on the idea of invisible diseases before. These are hospital related ailments that fewwant made public, and seldom discussed. Some of these may be iatrogenic, but often they are problems associated with management or policy issues. Hospital infection was one of these, and so was medication error. You can add the IVF mistakes to the list. Hospitals/clinics don't really track these problems, and even if they do you don't get to hear of them because no one wants to look bad. So the consumer is none the wiser.

One problem that was brought to my attention was that of surgical revisions, as a consequence of implants and prostheses etc. Unbeknownst to the public, this can be particularly problematic. You see, unlike drugs, which undergo extensive preclinical and clinical testing, medical devices are onlty minimally tested. There are few procedures to regulate the entry of these untested prosthesies and implants into the market, and we have no idea how many of the numerous implant/prosthesis fail, or how many patients need to undergo surgical revisions for these implants.

These figures are obviously important for the patient, but no one tracks these numbers and the surgeons are obviously not going to tell the patient how bad their figures are.

Maybe it's time for HSA to relook this blindspot in the regulation of medical devices so that patients can be better protected. At least they should be aware of the quality of the implants and prostheses being put into their bodies.

Here is some data I manage to pull out from a Swedish study on hip implants.

Makela et al. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Dec;90(12):1562-9.