Evidence-based objective performance criteria for the evaluation of hip and knee replacement devices and technologies.
Journal
International journal of surgery (London, England)
ISSN: 1743-9159
Titre abrégé: Int J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101228232
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2023
01 May 2023
Historique:
received:
21
08
2022
accepted:
28
12
2022
medline:
26
5
2023
pubmed:
8
4
2023
entrez:
7
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Objective performance criteria (OPC) is a novel method to provide minimum performance standards and improve the regulated introduction of original or incremental device innovations in order to prevent patients from being exposed to potentially inferior designs whilst allowing timely access to improvements. We developed 2-year safety and effectiveness OPC for total hip and knee replacement (THR and TKR). Analyses of large databases were conducted using various data sources: a systematic literature review; a direct data analysis from The Functional Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement and Quality Improvement Registry (FORCE-TJR) and the Kaiser Permanente Implant Registry (KPIR); and claims data analyses from longitudinal discharge data in New York and California states. The literature review included U.S. patients (≥18 years) who received THR or TKR for primary end-stage osteoarthritis and prospectively collected data on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from at least 100 subjects and/or 2-year implant survival for at least 250 implants. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. Data were available from a total of 951 100 patients. After screening of 7979 abstracts, 294 studies underwent full-text review and 31 studies contributed to the evidence synthesis (333 995 implants). Direct data analysis of FORCE-TJR contributed 9223 joint replacement patients to the construction of OPC for effectiveness; KPIR contributed 262 044 patients for the construction of OPC for safety. Claims database analysis contributed 345 838 patients to the construction of safety OPC. OPC for safety were constructed for cumulative incidences of 2-year all-cause and septic revision (THR/TKR 2.0%/1.6% and 0.6%/0.7%), and OPC for effectiveness were constructed based on four disease-specific and three general health-related quality of life PROMs (HOOS/KOOS 87.1/80.6; HSS/KSS function 94.4/90.6; SF-12/SF-36, PCS 46.5/41.9, EQ-5D 0.88/0.84). This study is the first to construct a 2-year OPC for the safety and effectiveness of THR and TKR based on U.S. real-world data. Based on these OPC, potential benchmarks for (single-arm study) evaluation of new device innovations are suggested for a regulated and safe introduction to the (commercial) market.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Objective performance criteria (OPC) is a novel method to provide minimum performance standards and improve the regulated introduction of original or incremental device innovations in order to prevent patients from being exposed to potentially inferior designs whilst allowing timely access to improvements. We developed 2-year safety and effectiveness OPC for total hip and knee replacement (THR and TKR).
METHODS
METHODS
Analyses of large databases were conducted using various data sources: a systematic literature review; a direct data analysis from The Functional Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement and Quality Improvement Registry (FORCE-TJR) and the Kaiser Permanente Implant Registry (KPIR); and claims data analyses from longitudinal discharge data in New York and California states. The literature review included U.S. patients (≥18 years) who received THR or TKR for primary end-stage osteoarthritis and prospectively collected data on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from at least 100 subjects and/or 2-year implant survival for at least 250 implants. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data were available from a total of 951 100 patients. After screening of 7979 abstracts, 294 studies underwent full-text review and 31 studies contributed to the evidence synthesis (333 995 implants). Direct data analysis of FORCE-TJR contributed 9223 joint replacement patients to the construction of OPC for effectiveness; KPIR contributed 262 044 patients for the construction of OPC for safety. Claims database analysis contributed 345 838 patients to the construction of safety OPC. OPC for safety were constructed for cumulative incidences of 2-year all-cause and septic revision (THR/TKR 2.0%/1.6% and 0.6%/0.7%), and OPC for effectiveness were constructed based on four disease-specific and three general health-related quality of life PROMs (HOOS/KOOS 87.1/80.6; HSS/KSS function 94.4/90.6; SF-12/SF-36, PCS 46.5/41.9, EQ-5D 0.88/0.84).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first to construct a 2-year OPC for the safety and effectiveness of THR and TKR based on U.S. real-world data. Based on these OPC, potential benchmarks for (single-arm study) evaluation of new device innovations are suggested for a regulated and safe introduction to the (commercial) market.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37026873
doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000169
pii: 01279778-202305000-00007
pmc: PMC10389375
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1125-1135Subventions
Organisme : FDA HHS
ID : U01 FD006936
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Références
Zhao X, Shah D, Gandhi K, et al. Clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of osteoarthritis among noninstitutionalized adults in the United States. Osteoarthr Cartil 2019;27:1618–1626.
Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019;393:1745–1759.
Hunter DJ, Schofield D, Callander E. The individual and socioeconomic impact of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2014;10:437–441.
Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, et al. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020–2040 using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol 2019;46:1134–1140.
Nelissen RG, Pijls BG, Kärrholm J, et al. RSA and registries: the quest for phased introduction of new implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93(suppl 3):62–65.
Cohen D. Faulty hip implant shows up failings of EU regulation. BMJ 2012;345:e7163.
Furnes O, Paxton E, Cafri G, et al. Distributed analysis of hip implants using six national and regional registries: comparing metal-on-metal with metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96(suppl 1):25–33.
Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, et al. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2012;380:1759–1766.
U.S. FDA. The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)]: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Accessed 5 May 2021. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/510k-program-evaluating-substantial-equivalence-premarket-notifications-510k
Ardaugh BM, Graves SE, Redberg RF. The 510(k) ancestry of a metal-on-metal hip implant. N Engl J Med 2013;368:97–100.
Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Nelissen RGHH, Schoones JW, et al. Appraisal of evidence base for introduction of new implants in hip and knee replacement: a systematic review of five widely used device technologies. BMJ: Br Med J 2014;349:g5133.
U.S. FDA. FDA Guidance: Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices. Accessed 28 May 2020. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/design-considerations-pivotal-clinical-investigations-medical-devices
U.S. FDA. Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration, 2017. https://www.fda.gov/media/99447/download
Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klassbo M, et al. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003;4:10.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;28:88–96.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:63–69.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol Group – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208.
Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1171–1178.
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992;305:160–164.
Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969;51:737–755.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:13–14.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
ISAR. International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group Guidance Document. ISAR; 2018, www.isarhome.com.
Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, et al. Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991–2010. JAMA 2012;308:1227–1236.
Evans JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, et al. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019;393:647–654.
Kandala NB, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, et al. Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence. BMJ 2015;350:h756.
Guidance for Industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance by U.S. Department of Health Human Services, and F.D.A. Center for Drug Evaluation Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation Research, Center for Devices Radiological Health. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2006;4:79.
Ramkumar PN, Harris JD, Noble PC. Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2015;4:120–127.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline, 2015. Accessed 1 June 2021. http://www.aaos.org/uploadedFiles/PreProduction/Quality/Guidelines_and_Reviews/SMOAK%20CPG__12.4.15.pdf
McGrory BJ, Weber KL, Jevsevar DS, et al. Surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based guideline. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016;24:e87–e93.
Head SJ, Mylotte D, Mack MJ, et al. Considerations and recommendations for the introduction of objective performance criteria for transcatheter aortic heart valve device approval. Circulation 2016;133:2086–2093.