No abstract

Objective To evaluate safety alerts and recalls, publication of key trial outcomes, and subsequent US approval of high profile medical devices introduced in the European Union.Design Cohort study.Setting Novel cardiovascular, orthopedic, and neurologic devices approved in the EU through Conformité Européenne marking between 2005 and 2010.Data sources Public and commercial databases searched up to January 2016 for press releases and announcements of approvals; public Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory authority databases for US approvals and safety alerts and recalls; and Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for peer reviewed publications.Main outcome measures We categorized the novelty of the devices in the study sample as a “major innovation” or an “other change,” and extracted descriptive data about the devices and information on any safety alerts and withdrawals. Linear regression models examined factors associated with differential EU and US approvals. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with safety alerts and recalls and the publication of trial outcomes for devices categorized as major innovations. Models controlled for time, therapeutic category, regulatory pathway, size of sponsoring company, and indicator variables for devices approved first in the EU and devices approved only in the EU.Results 67% (206/309) of devices identified were approved in both the US and the EU, of which 63% (129/206) were approved first in the EU. The unadjusted rate of safety alerts and recalls for devices approved first in the EU was 27% (62/232) compared with 14% (11/77) for devices approved first in the US. The adjusted hazard ratio for safety alerts and recalls was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.2) for devices approved first in the EU. The results of pivotal trials were published for 49% (37/75) of devices categorized as major innovations, with an overall publication rate of 37% five years after approval.Conclusions Devices approved first in the EU are associated with an increased risk of post-marketing safety alerts and recalls. Poor trial publication rates mean that patients and clinicians need greater regulatory transparency to make informed decisions about treatment.

Background and purpose Epilepsy is most common in lower‐income settings where access to electroencephalography (EEG) is generally poor. A low‐cost tablet‐based EEG device may be valuable, but the quality and reproducibility of the EEG output are not established. Methods Tablet‐based EEG was deployed in a heterogeneous epilepsy cohort in the Republic of Guinea (2018–2019), consisting of a tablet wirelessly connected to a 14‐electrode cap. Participants underwent EEG twice (EEG1 and EEG2), separated by a variable time interval. Recordings were scored remotely by experts in clinical neurophysiology as to data quality and clinical utility. Results There were 149 participants (41% female; median age 17.9 years; 66.6% ≤21 years of age; mean seizures per month 5.7 ± SD 15.5). The mean duration of EEG1 was 53 ± 12.3 min and that of EEG2 was 29.6 ± 12.8 min. The mean quality scores of EEG1 and EEG2 were 6.4 [range, 1 (low) to 10 (high); both medians 7.0]. A total of 44 (29.5%) participants had epileptiform discharges (EDs) at EEG1 and 25 (16.8%) had EDs at EEG2. EDs were focal/multifocal (rather than generalized) in 70.1% of EEG1 and 72.5% of EEG2 interpretations. A total of 39 (26.2%) were recommended for neuroimaging after EEG1 and 22 (14.8%) after EEG2. Of participants without EDs at EEG1 (n = 53, 55.8%), seven (13.2%) had EDs at EEG2. Of participants with detectable EDs on EEG1 (n = 23, 24.2%), 12 (52.1%) did not have EDs at EEG2. Conclusions Tablet‐based EEG had a reproducible quality level on repeat testing and was useful for the detection of EDs. The incremental yield of a second EEG in this setting was ~13%. The need for neuroimaging access was evident.

Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells (CAR-T) have emerged as a promising immunotherapeutic approach in relapsed/refractory haematolgical malignancies. Broader application is limited by unique toxicities, notably, neurotoxicity (NTX). Language dysfunction is among the most frequent symptoms of NTX, the underlying mechanisms of which remain to be elucidated. Electroencephalogram (EEG) is an important tool to monitor for NTX and may provide insights into language dysfunction.AimWe aimed to characterise language dysfunction and define electroencephalographic signatures after CAR-T cell therapy.MethodsWe reviewed the clinical presentation and EEG findings of 20 adult patients presenting with language dysfunction after CAR-T cell infusion. The cohort included a subset of patients treated with investigational CD19-directed CAR-T cells for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n=17), acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (n=1), follicular lymphoma (n=1) and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (n=1).ResultsLanguage dysfunction presented within 14 days of CAR-T cell infusion in 16 (84%) patients. Ten (50%) patients had mild word-finding difficulties and 10 (50%) had marked dysphasia with profound word-finding difficulties; the latter were all associated with generalised rhythmic delta activity or generalised periodic discharges on EEG.ConclusionsLanguage dysfunction after CAR-T cell therapy is associated with generalised EEG abnormalities.

No abstract