The Experts below are selected from a list of 651 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Aaron N. Winn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Role of the FDA and Regulatory Approval of New Devices for Diabetes Care
Current Diabetes Reports, 2017Co-Authors: Shelley A. Jazowski, Aaron N. WinnAbstract:Purpose of Review The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of medical devices in the USA. Extensive review times coupled with the demand for necessary treatments have prompted the policymakers to implement measures to speed medical devices to market.The purpose of this review is to summarize the evolution of the regulatory pathways through which medical devices utilized in diabetes care gain market access. Recent Findings Regulatory pathways, ranging from Premarket Notification to Premarket approval, require distinct, yet necessary (“least burdensome”) evidence demonstrating a device’s safety and effectiveness. Collaboration between manufacturers, regulators, and patients has resulted in the development and approval of novel diabetes care devices, including the first hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas. Summary Policy provisions, ranging from the least burdensome approach to the “breakthrough device” expedited pathway, aim to balance innovation, access, and safety. Clinicians must be aware of the evolving regulatory landscape and play an active role in enhancing patient safety.
-
The Role of the FDA and Regulatory Approval of New Devices for Diabetes Care
Current Diabetes Reports, 2017Co-Authors: Shelley A. Jazowski, Aaron N. WinnAbstract:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of medical devices in the USA. Extensive review times coupled with the demand for necessary treatments have prompted the policymakers to implement measures to speed medical devices to market.The purpose of this review is to summarize the evolution of the regulatory pathways through which medical devices utilized in diabetes care gain market access. Regulatory pathways, ranging from Premarket Notification to Premarket approval, require distinct, yet necessary (“least burdensome”) evidence demonstrating a device’s safety and effectiveness. Collaboration between manufacturers, regulators, and patients has resulted in the development and approval of novel diabetes care devices, including the first hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas. Policy provisions, ranging from the least burdensome approach to the “breakthrough device” expedited pathway, aim to balance innovation, access, and safety. Clinicians must be aware of the evolving regulatory landscape and play an active role in enhancing patient safety.
Shelley A. Jazowski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Role of the FDA and Regulatory Approval of New Devices for Diabetes Care
Current Diabetes Reports, 2017Co-Authors: Shelley A. Jazowski, Aaron N. WinnAbstract:Purpose of Review The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of medical devices in the USA. Extensive review times coupled with the demand for necessary treatments have prompted the policymakers to implement measures to speed medical devices to market.The purpose of this review is to summarize the evolution of the regulatory pathways through which medical devices utilized in diabetes care gain market access. Recent Findings Regulatory pathways, ranging from Premarket Notification to Premarket approval, require distinct, yet necessary (“least burdensome”) evidence demonstrating a device’s safety and effectiveness. Collaboration between manufacturers, regulators, and patients has resulted in the development and approval of novel diabetes care devices, including the first hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas. Summary Policy provisions, ranging from the least burdensome approach to the “breakthrough device” expedited pathway, aim to balance innovation, access, and safety. Clinicians must be aware of the evolving regulatory landscape and play an active role in enhancing patient safety.
-
The Role of the FDA and Regulatory Approval of New Devices for Diabetes Care
Current Diabetes Reports, 2017Co-Authors: Shelley A. Jazowski, Aaron N. WinnAbstract:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of medical devices in the USA. Extensive review times coupled with the demand for necessary treatments have prompted the policymakers to implement measures to speed medical devices to market.The purpose of this review is to summarize the evolution of the regulatory pathways through which medical devices utilized in diabetes care gain market access. Regulatory pathways, ranging from Premarket Notification to Premarket approval, require distinct, yet necessary (“least burdensome”) evidence demonstrating a device’s safety and effectiveness. Collaboration between manufacturers, regulators, and patients has resulted in the development and approval of novel diabetes care devices, including the first hybrid closed-loop artificial pancreas. Policy provisions, ranging from the least burdensome approach to the “breakthrough device” expedited pathway, aim to balance innovation, access, and safety. Clinicians must be aware of the evolving regulatory landscape and play an active role in enhancing patient safety.
Annie Wong-beringer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Regulatory oversight and safety of probiotic use
Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2010Co-Authors: Veena Venugopalan, Kimberly A. Shriner, Annie Wong-beringerAbstract:Depending on intended use of a probiotic (drug vs. dietary supplement), regulatory requirements differ greatly. For dietary supplements, Premarketing demonstration of safety and efficacy and approval by the Food and Drug Administration are not required; only Premarket Notification is required. Saccharomyces boulardii is a probiotic regulated as a dietary supplement intended for use by the general healthy population, not as a drug to prevent, treat, or mitigate disease. However, since recent increases in incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infection, probiotics have been used to treat recurrent and/or refractory disease in hospitalized patients. Saccharomyces fungemia secondary to use of the probiotic has been described for patients who are critically ill, are receiving nutrition enterally, or have a central venous catheter. Before use of a probiotic is considered for hospitalized patients, careful assessment of risk versus benefit must be made. To ensure patient safety, probiotics should be properly handled during administration.
I Idakoji - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence based evaluation of inferior vena cava filter complications based on filter type
Seminars in Interventional Radiology, 2016Co-Authors: Steven E Deso, I IdakojiAbstract:Many inferior vena cava (IVC) filter types, along with their specific risks and complications, are not recognized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various FDA-approved IVC filter types to determine device-specific risks, as a way to help identify patients who may benefit from ongoing follow-up versus prompt filter retrieval. An evidence-based electronic search (FDA Premarket Notification, MEDLINE, FDA MAUDE) was performed to identify all IVC filter types and device-specific complications from 1980 to 2014. Twenty-three IVC filter types (14 retrievable, 9 permanent) were identified. The devices were categorized as follows: conical (n = 14), conical with umbrella (n = 1), conical with cylindrical element (n = 2), biconical with cylindrical element (n = 2), helical (n = 1), spiral (n = 1), and complex (n = 1). Purely conical filters were associated with the highest reported risks of penetration (90–100%). Filters with cylindrical or umbrella elements were associated with the highest reported risk of IVC thrombosis (30–50%). Conical Bard filters were associated with the highest reported risks of fracture (40%). The various FDA-approved IVC filter types were evaluated for device-specific complications based on best current evidence. This information can be used to guide and optimize clinical management in patients with indwelling IVC filters.
Steven E Deso - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evidence based evaluation of inferior vena cava filter complications based on filter type
Seminars in Interventional Radiology, 2016Co-Authors: Steven E Deso, I IdakojiAbstract:Many inferior vena cava (IVC) filter types, along with their specific risks and complications, are not recognized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various FDA-approved IVC filter types to determine device-specific risks, as a way to help identify patients who may benefit from ongoing follow-up versus prompt filter retrieval. An evidence-based electronic search (FDA Premarket Notification, MEDLINE, FDA MAUDE) was performed to identify all IVC filter types and device-specific complications from 1980 to 2014. Twenty-three IVC filter types (14 retrievable, 9 permanent) were identified. The devices were categorized as follows: conical (n = 14), conical with umbrella (n = 1), conical with cylindrical element (n = 2), biconical with cylindrical element (n = 2), helical (n = 1), spiral (n = 1), and complex (n = 1). Purely conical filters were associated with the highest reported risks of penetration (90–100%). Filters with cylindrical or umbrella elements were associated with the highest reported risk of IVC thrombosis (30–50%). Conical Bard filters were associated with the highest reported risks of fracture (40%). The various FDA-approved IVC filter types were evaluated for device-specific complications based on best current evidence. This information can be used to guide and optimize clinical management in patients with indwelling IVC filters.
-
Creation of an iOS and Android Mobile Application for Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters: A Powerful Tool to Optimize Care of Patients with IVC Filters.
Seminars in Interventional Radiology, 2016Co-Authors: Steven E Deso, Ibrahim A Idakoji, Michael C Muelly, William T KuoAbstract:Owing to a myriad of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter types and their potential complications, rapid and correct identification may be challenging when encountered on routine imaging. The authors aimed to develop an interactive mobile application that allows recognition of all IVC filters and related complications, to optimize the care of patients with indwelling IVC filters. The FDA Premarket Notification Database was queried from 1980 to 2014 to identify all IVC filter types in the United States. An electronic search was then performed on MEDLINE and the FDA MAUDE database to identify all reported complications associated with each device. High-resolution photos were taken of each filter type and corresponding computed tomographic and fluoroscopic images were obtained from an institutional review board-approved IVC filter registry. A wireframe and storyboard were created, and software was developed using HTML5/CSS compliant code. The software was deployed using PhoneGap (Adobe, San Jose, CA), and the prototype was tested and refined. Twenty-three IVC filter types were identified for inclusion. Safety data from FDA MAUDE and 72 relevant peer-reviewed studies were acquired, and complication rates for each filter type were highlighted in the application. Digital photos, fluoroscopic images, and CT DICOM files were seamlessly incorporated. All data were succinctly organized electronically, and the software was successfully deployed into Android (Google, Mountain View, CA) and iOS (Apple, Cupertino, CA) platforms. A powerful electronic mobile application was successfully created to allow rapid identification of all IVC filter types and related complications. This application may be used to optimize the care of patients with IVC filters.