Researchers have found that a number of deaths related to medical device adverse events were improperly categorised in the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, according to a new study.
Flagging terms commonly associated with death, the study investigators used a natural language processing algorithm to identify 290 141 reports where serious injury or death was reported; 52.1% of these events were reported as deaths, and 47.9% were classified as either malfunction, injury, or missing (report was uncategorised), reported Christina Lalani, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and colleagues, in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Overall, 23% of reports with a death were not placed in the death category, amounting to some 31 552 reports filed from December 31, 1991, to April 30, 2020.
Whether to classify the event as a malfunction, injury, death, or ‘other’ is up to the physician or manufacturer. According to the FDA, the reporter is required to categorise an adverse event as an official death if the cause of death is unknown, or if the device “may have caused or contributed to a death.”
The three most common product codes among the adverse event reports were for ventricular assist bypass devices (38 708 reports), dialysate concentrate for haemodialysis (25 261 reports), and transcervical contraceptive tubal occlusion devices (14 387 reports).
The natural language processing algorithm scanned through reports, identifying terms such as “patient died,” “patient expired,” “could not be resuscitated,” and “time of death.” Of the 70 terms that were associated with a death, 62 (88.6%) were found among miscategorised adverse event reports involving a patient death. And, out of all 62, there were 17 terms that had an estimated percentage of 100%, meaning that “every time that term was used, the patient had died, even though the reporter had not classified the report as death,” the team wrote.
Only 18 terms had sample sizes large enough for researchers to calculate confidence intervals; among them, the words “death” or “deaths” were linked to 12% of adverse event reports in which a patient died, but were classified as malfunction, other, or missing — the highest rate of all the analysed terms.
The researchers acknowledged a major limitation in that only reports with at least one death-associated term were included, in contrast to all the reports from the MAUDE database. Improperly categorised deaths likely contribute to an underestimate.
“The classification chosen by the reporter is vital, as the FDA must review all adverse events reported as deaths, which is not the case for other reporting categories,” the authors wrote. Improving the reports’ accuracy is crucial, since patient death frequency can prompt the FDA to pursue investigations into the device’s safety, they added.
The researchers pointed out an inherent conflict of interest as 95.9% of the reports evaluated in the study were submitted by manufacturers.
“It may not be in their interest to facilitate identification of serious problems with their own devices in a timely manner,” they wrote. “There have been multiple instances of delays by manufacturers in reporting serious malfunctions and deaths that were associated with medical devices, as well as complete failures to report.”
Therefore, it’s likely that a significant number of patients have been unknowingly treated with devices that were later revealed to be dangerous, Dr Lalani and colleagues noted. For example, they referenced the reporting failures that occurred from 2002 to 2013, when 32 000 women reported adverse events associated with the permanent birth control device Essure while the FDA only received 1023 adverse event reports from the manufacturer.
They concluded that patients and care providers should submit reports directly to the FDA as well as or instead of the manufacturer.
Source: MedPage Today
Journal information: Lalani C, et al “Reporting of death in US Food and Drug Administration medical device adverse event reports in categories other than death” JAMA Intern Med 2021; DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.3942.
