Medtech Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

TESTICULAR PROSTHESIS EFFICACY MEASUREMENTS

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

TESTICULAR PROSTHESIS EFFICACY MEASUREMENTS IN PMAs should include assessments of "the degree of maintenance or enhancement of a male's psychological well- being post-implantation; and the anatomical effect provided by the device in vivo," FDA says in a draft guidance on the preparation of testicular implant premarket approval applications that was released at an April 15 meeting of the agency's gastroenterology and urology devices panel. The agency says that psychological assessments, which can be made using "scientifically valid" questionnaires, are important because "the primary benefit of the testicular prosthesis is cosmetic in nature." The psychological assessments should include a statistical comparison of the pre- and post-surgical "psychological status" of patients. Pre-surgical assessments should include "measures of the perceived loss that these subjects experience and their expectations for improvement with the device," FDA says; post- surgical psychological assessments should be made for five years or until maturity of the patient, whichever occurs later. FDA also wants sponsors to compare psychological test scores of treated patients with those of a control group that did not receive the device. Researchers also should provide a "correlation of the psychological data with the physical outcomes of the implantation procedure," the guidance says. At the April 15 meeting, panel consultant Alan Bennett, MD, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York, questioned the draft guidance's recommendations for psychological assessments. He asserted that "pre-operative psychological testing in a seven-year- old who is getting a testicular implant for undescended testis is kind of silly," as is "a pre-operative assessment in a twenty-three- year-old who's having a radical orchiectomy." He maintained that "it may be very difficult to keep these products, which do help in many, many patients, on the market unless we modify in some significant way the protocols" suggested in the guidance. The agency's recommendations for performing anatomical assessments prompted little comment. The guidance proposes that implant recipients undergo post-surgical followup that includes evaluations of the implant's stiffness, position and dimensional characteristics. The evaluations should continue for five years or until maturity, whichever occurs later. "Patient assessments of the physical presence of the implant" also should be taken into consideration, FDA proposes. The suggested safety assessments in the draft guidance are similar to those outlined in a January proposed call for PMAs for testicular implants, which are pre-1976 Class III devices ("The Gray Sheet" Jan. 11, p. 5). The prospective studies should have "clear" objectives and should evaluate potential risks such as migration, rupture, leakage, fibrous capsular contracture, infection and patient dissatisfaction. Again, followup data should be collected for five years after the implantation or until the device recipient reaches physical maturity, whichever occurs later. Commenting on the safety requirements, Reginald Bruskewitz, MD, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, said: "I think the study design is very nice but I don't know whether the study will ever get off the ground because the numbers [of implant patients] aren't there anymore." According to Bruskewitz, the decline in implantees is due to the fact that "patients who have been offered [a testicular implant] don't want it because they...don't know" the risks from a device that has similarities to breast prostheses. Panel Chairman John Wallin, MD, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, added: "Safety is the key...There's no question of efficacy. You put a mass in the scrotum, and it's there."

You may also be interested in...



FDA Overhauls Its Purple Book

The US FDA has overhauled its ‘Purple Book’ to make it a searchable database of biologics information. The agency is also seeking input on next steps.

ICH Syncs Reproductive Toxicity Guidance With Current Science

The International Council for Harmonisation has replaced its 1993 guideline on reproductive toxicity studies with an updated version.

Stada Grabs GSK Brands In EU

Stada says it has become a "major consumer healthcare player" after signing a deal to acquire from GSK 15 brands, which generate annual sales of around €120m.

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT000514

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel