HEALTH AND SAFETY

» Drug, Devices, and Supplements

» Physician Accountability

» Consumer Product Safety

» Worker Safety

» Health Care Delivery

» Auto and Truck Safety

» Global Access to Medicines

» Infant Formula Marketing

 

More Information on the Menaflex Collagen Scaffold Medical Device

Medical Device Maker's Brazen Manipulation of Approval Process Shows Need to Reform FDA

March 6, 2009

Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H., Deputy Director, Public Citizen's Health Research Group

Today, The Wall Street Journal described how Regen Biologics manipulated the pre-market review process at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to win approval for its device, the Menaflex Collagen Scaffold, an implant that replaces damaged knee cartilage. Public Citizen was the only group to testify at the Nov. 14, 2008, FDA advisory committee meeting on this product. We recommended that the FDA not approve the device on the grounds that a clinical trial conducted by the company conclusively proved that the device has no clinical benefit. The company instead submitted bench testing data on the product’s tensile strength, for example. This is all very well but in the end how will a doctor justify to a patient implanting a device conclusively proven to do nothing clinically? Nonetheless, the device was approved on Dec. 18, 2008.  

In our testimony, we objected to the FDA reviewing the Menaflex under the less-stringent 510(k) process, rather than under the more-rigorous Pre-market Approval (PMA) mechanism. In fact, ReGen had initially sought PMA approval but after data collection in its negative, randomized-controlled trial was complete, shifted to the 510(k) process. In today’s Wall Street Journal, former FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach now admits that, “There’s something wrong with how that decision [to use the 510(k) pathway] was made … We fumbled that process.” Most patients will never know that the Menaflex only reached the market through the sponsor’s cunning manipulation of the regulatory process, aided and abetted by the FDA, leading to approval through this less-rigorous pathway.

According to the article, ReGen was permitted input into the makeup of the advisory committee, the questions posed to the advisory committee members and who would make the FDA presentation. One is hard pressed to remember manipulation of an FDA advisory committee so thorough and so brazen. 

The article clearly documents the extent to which senior FDA officials are willing to bend over backwards to appease industry, even going so far as to overrule the scientists with most intimate knowledge of the product. Until the agency puts itself back on a secure scientific footing, the public will continue to put little stock in its approval decisions.

Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

You can support the fight for greater government and corporate accountability through a donation to either Public Citizen, Inc., or Public Citizen Foundation, Inc.

Public Citizen lobbies Congress and federal agencies to advance Public Citizen’s mission of advancing government and corporate accountability. When you make a contribution to Public Citizen, you become a member of Public Citizen, showing your support and entitling you to benefits such as Public Citizen News. Contributions to Public Citizen are not tax-deductible.

Public Citizen Foundation focuses on research, public education, and litigation in support of our mission. By law, the Foundation can engage in only very limited lobbying. Contributions to Public Citizen Foundation are tax-deductible.