Showing posts with label Adverse Event. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adverse Event. Show all posts

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: Information for healthcare professionals

Vaginal mesh implants used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) include a range of different types of mesh implanted in the pelvic floor area in a number of different ways to support the vaginal wall and/or internal organs. The mesh can be synthetic, ‘biological’ or a combination of the two and it may be absorbable or non-absorbable.

MHRA investigation into vaginal mesh implants

In light of an increasing number of adverse events and patient concerns being reported, the MHRA launched an investigation to better understand the use of these devices and the complications associated with their use.

MHRA workshop

The MHRA held a workshop in March 2012 under the chairmanship of Professor Paul Abrams, which included representatives of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Association of Urological Surgeons, the British Society of Urogynaecology, NICE, the University of Aberdeen Health Services Research Unit, and representatives of some manufacturers of these devices, to consider how to make this a safer procedure.
The meeting covered:
  • types of vaginal mesh
  • clinical experience, training and outcomes of prolapse surgery
  • complications arising from the use of vaginal mesh
  • NICE/IPAC guidance
  • adverse event reporting
  • responsibilities of involved parties (clinicians, regulators and manufacturers).
Further information on the outcomes of this workshop can be found in the section Responsibilities of the parties involved in the manufacture, regulation and surgical provision of vaginal meshes

MHRA review

In light of an increasing number of adverse events and patient concerns being reported, the MHRA launched an investigation to better understand the use of vaginal tapes/slings and meshes and the complications associated with their use.
Although MHRA have had very few reports of problems with these devices we have noted concerns about their safety that are being expressed by patients and patients’ groups. We do take the problems and issues reported very seriously and share concern for their safety, and those that have experienced unwanted complications from them.
In February 2012, the MHRA commissioned a systematic review of the available literature on the incidence of the most frequently reported adverse events associated with different meshes/tapes/slings. The results can be found on Summaries of the safety/adverse effects of vaginal meshes for prolapse
We continue to actively investigate and gathering evidence on the safety of these vaginal mesh and tape devices to better inform patients, doctors and surgeons about the risks, benefits and uses of these devices.

Adverse events that should be reported

The MHRA is still gathering information on the use and complications associated with these devices and would encourage reporting of adverse events to us.
Adverse events related to these devices that we expect clinicians to report to us include the following:
Pre-procedural
  • mesh appears unsuitable to implant e.g. rough or sharp edges; too hard or brittle; not to specification
  • packaging compromised affecting sterility.

Procedural related
  • tape/mesh tears or disintegrates when implanting or fixing mesh in place
  • bladder perforation.

Post operatively
  • patient has an unexpected severe adverse/allergic tissue reaction to the mesh
  • bladder perforation.

Longer-term patient follow-up
  • evidence of mesh shrinkage, disintegration, hardening, brittleness
  • recurrence of prolapse
  • bladder perforation
  • vaginal perforation
  • recurrence of stress or urge incontinence
  • mesh erosion/extrusion through tissues - especially where further surgery is needed for partial or total mesh removal
  • dyspareunia
  • persistent pelvic/groin pain.

Further information

NHS Choices webpage on treatment for prolapse of the uterus (external link).

NICE guidance

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has produced guidance on the use of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, which is available on the NICE website, along with summaries of the guidance produced for patients.
For the following procedures NICE guidelines state that current evidence on the efficacy and safety of these procedures is inadequate in quantity and quality. Therefore the procedure should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research.
Infracoccygeal sacropexy using mesh for uterine prolapse repair (IPG280)

Infracoccygeal sacropexy using mesh for vaginal vault prolapse repair (IPG281)

Insertion of mesh uterine suspension sling (including sacrohysteropexy) for uterine prolapse repair(IPG282)

Sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy using mesh for uterine prolapse repair (IPG284)

For the procedure Sacrocolpopexy using mesh for vaginal vault prolapse repair (IPG283), current evidence on the safety and efficacy of sacrocolpopexy using mesh for vaginal vault prolapse repair appears adequate to support the use of this procedure provided that normal arrangements are in place for clinical governance and audit.

Monday, March 03, 2014

Adhesiolysis linked to high morbidity, higher hospitalization costs

Adhesiolysis linked to high morbidity, higher hospitalization costs


Adhesiolysis was associated with an increased risk for a variety of morbidities during repeat abdominal surgery including inadvertent bowel defects, seromuscular injuries, and postoperative sepsis, according to the results of a prospective study.
"All physicians treating patients with disorders of the abdominal cavity that might require surgery should be aware of the adverse effects of adhesiolysis," reported Dr. Richard P.G. ten Broek and his associates in the department of surgery at Radboud University Nijmegen (the Netherlands) Medical Center. The study was published in Annals of Surgery (2013;258:98-106).
The investigators conducted the prospective cohort study to evaluate the direct effects of adhesiolysis on unintentional organ damage, morbidity, and costs during repeat operations, to address the lack of information in this area. They collected data from a total of 755 elective laparotomy or laparoscopy procedures in 715 patients performed at the medical center between June 2008 and June 2010.

Adhesion Related Disorder International Human Rights Team IHRT: Mark Grinstaff ~ Boston University Ground Breakers ~ Wish to cure adhesions

Adhesion Related Disorder International Human Rights Team IHRT: Mark Grinstaff ~ Boston University Ground Breakers ~ Wish to cure adhesions

Monday, December 16, 2013

Current Status of Adhesions Clinical Trails from clinicaltrails.gov


RankStatusStudy
1 Completed Closure of Peritoneum at Cesarean Section and Postoperative Adhesion
Conditions: Cesarean Section; Adhesions
Intervention: Procedure: Closure of the peritoneum at cs

2 Completed Efficacy and Safety Study of Anti-Adhesion Product in the Prevention of Intraperitoneal Adhesions
Condition: Intraperitoneal Adhesions
Intervention: Biological: Anti-Adhesion Product

3 Active, not recruiting Seprafilm® Adhesion Barrier and Cesarean Delivery
Conditions: Adhesions; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric
Interventions: Device: modified sodium hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose (Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier); Device: Placebo

4 Not yet recruiting Adhesions After Open Versus Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Malignancies Detected During Liver Resection
Condition: Adhesions
Intervention: Procedure: Liver resection

5 Completed Safety and Efficacy Study of a Hydrogel, Applied Following Removal of Myomas During Gynecologic Surgery, Administered for the Prevention/Reduction of Postoperative Adhesion Formation
Condition: Myoma
Interventions: Other: Adhibit Adhesion Prevention Gel; Other: Standard of Care Comparator

6 Terminated
Has Results DuraGen Plus® Adhesion Barrier for Use in Spinal Surgery
Conditions: Spinal Injuries; Adhesions
Intervention: Device: DuraGen Plus Adhesion Barrier Matrix

7 Terminated Seprafilm® for Prevention of Adhesions at Repeat Cesarean
Condition: Adhesion Formation After Primary Cesarean Delivery
Interventions: Device: Seprafilm®; Other: Control

8 Terminated Efficacy of Sprayable PEG Barrier in Gynecologic Laparoscopy
Conditions: Postoperative Adhesion; Peritoneal Adhesion, Nos
Interventions: Device: Spraygel; Device: Control

9 Not yet recruiting A Trial to Reduce Adhesions Following a Primary Cesarean Section
Condition: Tissue Adhesions
Intervention: Device: Seprafilm

10 Completed Efficacity Assessment of PREVADH® in Adhesion Prevention in Gynaecologic Surgery
Conditions: Uterine Fibroids; Fertility Disorders
Interventions: Other: Ringer lactate solution; Device: Prevadh film

11 Completed Evaluation of Bioresorbable Sheet to Prevent Intra-Abdominal Adhesions in Colorectal Surgeries
Condition: Adhesions
Intervention: Device: Polylactic Acid Sheet

12 Recruiting Intravitreal Gas for Vitreomacular Adhesion
Condition: Vitreomacular Adhesion
Intervention: Procedure: Intravitreal Injection of sulfahexafluoride gas

13 Recruiting Comparative Effectiveness Multicenter Trial for Adhesion Characteristics of Ventral Hernia Repair Mesh
Conditions: Ventral Hernia; Adhesions
Intervention: Procedure: Clinically-Indicated Abdominal Re-Exploration Surgery

14 Suspended Evaluation of Adhexil Safety and Efficacy in Prevention and/or Reduction of Adhesions in Gynecological Surgery
Conditions: Ovarian Cysts; Endometriosis; Adhesions
Intervention: Biological: ADHEXIL

15 Terminated Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Sepraspray™ in Reducing Post-surgical Adhesions
Condition: Abdominal Adhesions
Intervention: Device: Sepraspray

16 Not yet recruiting A Trial to Assess the Effect and Safety of the C-Qur™ Film
Condition: Postoperative Adhesions
Intervention: Device: C-Qur

17 Completed Collagenase in the Treatment of Zone II Flexor Tendon Adhesions in the Hand
Condition: Adhesion of Flexor Tendon of Hand
Interventions: Drug: Collagenase; Drug: Collagenase injection

18 Recruiting The Role of 2-octyl Cyanoacrylate in Prevention of Recurrent Adhesions After Circumcision
Conditions: Phimosis; Adhesions
Interventions: Procedure: application of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive in addition to stitches; Procedure: standard stitches only

19 Terminated SprayShield EU Post Market Study
Conditions: Ulcerative Colitis; Familial Polyposis
Interventions: Device: SprayShield Adhesion Barrier System; Procedure: Good Surgical Technique Alone

20 Recruiting Effects of CoSeal on Bleeding & Adhesions in Pediatric Heart Surgery
Conditions: Congenital Heart Defect; Surgery-Induced Tissue Adhesions; Hemorrhage
Intervention: Device: CoSeal Surgical Spray Group

21 Completed

Safety and Efficacy Study of Intravitreal Ocriplasmin in Subjects With AMD With Focal Vitreomacular Adhesion

Conditions:
Exudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration; Focal Vitreomacular Adhesion
Interventions:
Drug: Ocriplasmin; Drug: Sham injection



22 Terminated Pregabalin for Abdominal Pain From Adhesions

Conditions: Abdominal Pain; Surgical Adhesions
Intervention: Drug: Pregabalin

23 Completed A-Part® Gel as Adhesion Prophylaxis After Major Abdominal Surgery Versus a Non-treated Group

Conditions: Adhesions; Abdominal Cavity
Intervention: Device: A-Part® Gel

24 Active, not recruiting Assessment of the Manageability and Safety of ADBLOCK Adhesion Barrier System in Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgery

Condition: UTERINE MYOMAS
Intervention: Device: ADBLOCK

25 Completed Has Results
Post Market Study for an Adhesion Barrier Following Laparoscopic Myomectomy

Conditions: Fibroid; Myoma; Leiomyoma
Intervention: Device: SprayShield™

26 Completed Resorbable Barrier for the Prevention of Abdominal and Peri-hepatic Adhesion Formation

Condition: Colorectal Cancer
Interventions: Procedure: - use of resorbable membrane Seprafilm; Procedure: without resorbable barrier (seprafilm)

27 Recruiting Seprafilm Slurry in the Prevention of Uterine Scarring in Patients Undergoing Hysteroscopic Myomectomy

Condition: Intrauterine Adhesions
Interventions: Device: Seprafilm; Device: Sterile Saline Solution

28 Completed Adhesion Formation Following Laparoscopic and Open Colorectal Surgery

Condition: Adhesions
Intervention: Procedure: Laparoscopy

29 Completed Has Results
Trial of Microplasmin Intravitreal Injection for Non-surgical Treatment of Focal Vitreomacular Adhesion. The MIVI-TRUST (TG-MV-006) Trial.
Condition: Vitreomacular Adhesion
Interventions: Drug: 125 µg Ocriplasmin; Drug: Placebo

30 Completed Interferon Gamma to Treat Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency Type I

Condition: Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency Syndrome
Intervention: Drug: Interferon gamma

31 Completed Has Results
Trial of Microplasmin Intravitreal Injection for Non-Surgical Treatment of Focal Vitreomacular Adhesion. The MIVI-TRUST (TG-MV-007) Trial.

Condition: Vitreomacular Adhesion
Interventions: Drug: Ocriplasmin 125µg; Drug: Placebo

32 Recruiting a Study to Evaluate Adhesion Risk in Fertility Patients' Status Post Laparoscopic Myomectomy.

Conditions: Uterine Fibroids; Infertility
Intervention: Device: surgery utilizing V-Loc suture

33 Completed Efficiency of Intercoat (Oxiplex/AP Gel)in Decreasing Intrauterine Adhesions

Condition: Asherman Syndrome
Interventions: Drug: Oxiplex/AP gel; Drug: Normal Saline

34 Completed Safety Study of Polylactide-Caprolactone-Trimethylenecarbonate Copolymer for Post-Operative Adhesion Prophylaxis

Condition: Adhesions
Interventions: Device: polylactide-caprolactone-trimethylenecarbonate copolymer; Device: Icodextrin 4%

35 Completed Stem Cell Transplantation to Treat Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency

Condition: Leukocyte-Adhesion Deficiency Syndrome
Intervention: Procedure: modified stem cell transplant

36 Completed Safety and Efficacy Study of Microplasmin in for Non-Surgical Treatment of Focal Vitreomacular Adhesion

Condition: Focal Vitreomacular Adhesion
Intervention: Drug: Microplasmin

37 Completed Efficacy and Safety of the Investigational Device, SurgiShield Anti-Adhesion Barrier Gel

Condition: Wound Healing
Intervention: Device: 5ml surgishield

38 Recruiting A Phase III Study of A01016 in Subjects With Symptomatic Vitreomacular Adhesion

Condition: Vitreomacular Adhesion
Interventions: Drug: A01016; Drug: Sham injection

39 Recruiting Propanolol and Red Cell Adhesion Non-asthmatic Children Sickle Cell Disease

Condition: Sickle Cell Disease
Intervention: Drug: propranolol

40 Recruiting Adhesion of Connective Tissue Around Laser-treated Abutments for Dental Implants - Clinical Trial in Humans

Condition: Periimplantitis
Intervention: Procedure: Dental implant placement with a final pro

Sunday, January 22, 2012

U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors

U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors
By ROBERT PEAR


Published: January 16, 2012


WASHINGTON — To head off medical conflicts of interest, the Obama administration is poised to require drug companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors for research, consulting, speaking, travel and entertainment.

Many researchers have found evidence that such payments can influence doctors’ treatment decisions and contribute to higher costs by encouraging the use of more expensive drugs and medical devices.

Consumer advocates and members of Congress say patients may benefit from the new standards, being issued by the government under the new health care law. Officials said the disclosures increased the likelihood that doctors would make decisions in the best interests of patients, without regard to the doctors’ financial interests.
Click link to continue: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/health/policy/us-to-tell-drug-makers-to-disclose-payments-to-doctors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Saturday, January 14, 2012

FDA Safety Communication: UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

FDA Safety Communication: UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Date Issued: July 13, 2011

Audience:

Health care providers who implant surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence
Health care providers involved in the care of patients with surgical mesh implanted to repair pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence
Patients who are considering or have received a surgical mesh implant to repair pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence
Medical Specialties: gynecology, urogynecology, urology, general surgery, internal medicine, family practice, emergency medicine

Device:
Surgical mesh is a medical device that is generally used to repair weakened or damaged tissue. It is made from porous absorbable or non-absorbable synthetic material or absorbable biologic material. In urogynecologic procedures, surgical mesh is permanently implanted to reinforce the weakened vaginal wall to repair pelvic organ prolapse or to support the urethra to treat urinary incontinence.

Background:
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) occurs when the tissues that hold the pelvic organs in place become weak or stretched. Thirty to fifty percent of women may experience POP in their lifetime with 2 percent developing symptoms. When POP happens, the organs bulge (prolapse) into the vagina and sometimes prolapse past the vaginal opening. More than one pelvic organ can prolapse at the same time. Organs that can be involved in POP include the bladder, the uterus, the rectum, the top of the vagina (vaginal apex) after a hysterectomy, and the bowel.

Stress Urinary Incontinence
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a leakage of urine during moments of physical activity, such as coughing, sneezing, laughing, or exercise.

Purpose:
On Oct. 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification and Additional Patient Information on serious complications associated with surgical mesh placed through the vagina (transvaginal placement) to treat POP and SUI.

Based on an updated analysis of adverse events reported to the FDA and complications described in the scientific literature, the FDA identified surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP as an area of continuing serious concern.

The FDA is issuing this update to inform you that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare. This is a change from what the FDA previously reported on Oct. 20, 2008. Furthermore, it is not clear that transvaginal POP repair with mesh is more effective than traditional non-mesh repair in all patients with POP and it may expose patients to greater risk. This Safety Communication provides updated recommendations for health care providers and patients and updates the FDA’s activities involving surgical mesh for the transvaginal repair of POP.

The FDA continues to evaluate the effects of using surgical mesh to repair SUI and will communicate these findings at a later date.

For detailed information, please see: Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.1

Summary of Problem and Scope:
In the Oct. 20, 2008 FDA Public Health Notification, the number of adverse events reported to the FDA for surgical mesh devices used to repair POP and SUI for the previous 3-year period (2005 – 2007) was “over 1,000.” Since then, from Jan. 01, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2010, the FDA received 2,874 additional reports of complications associated with surgical mesh devices used to repair POP and SUI, with 1,503 reports associated with POP repairs and 1,371 associated with SUI repairs. Although it is common for adverse event reporting to increase following an FDA safety communication, we are concerned that the number of adverse event reports remains high.

From 2008 – 2010, the most frequent complications reported to the FDA for surgical mesh devices for POP repair include mesh erosion through the vagina (also called exposure, extrusion or protrusion), pain, infection, bleeding, pain during sexual intercourse (dyspareunia), organ perforation, and urinary problems. There were also reports of recurrent prolapse, neuro-muscular problems, vaginal scarring/shrinkage, and emotional problems. Many of these complications require additional intervention, including medical or surgical treatment and hospitalization.

In order to better understand the use of surgical mesh for POP and SUI, the FDA conducted a systematic review of the published scientific literature from 1996 – 2011 to evaluate its safety and effectiveness. The review showed that transvaginal POP repair with mesh does not improve symptomatic results or quality of life over traditional non-mesh repair. The FDA continues to evaluate the literature for SUI surgeries using surgical mesh and will report about that usage at a later date.

In particular, the literature review revealed that:

Mesh used in transvaginal POP repair introduces risks not present in traditional non-mesh surgery for POP repair.
Mesh placed abdominally for POP repair appears to result in lower rates of mesh complications compared to transvaginal POP surgery with mesh.
There is no evidence that transvaginal repair to support the top of the vagina (apical repair) or the back wall of the vagina (posterior repair) with mesh provides any added benefit compared to traditional surgery without mesh.
While transvaginal surgical repair to correct weakened tissue between the bladder and vagina (anterior repair) with mesh augmentation may provide an anatomic benefit compared to traditional POP repair without mesh, this anatomic benefit may not result in better symptomatic results.
The FDA’s literature review found that erosion of mesh through the vagina is the most common and consistently reported mesh-related complication from transvaginal POP surgeries using mesh. Mesh erosion can require multiple surgeries to repair and can be debilitating for some women. In some cases, even multiple surgeries will not resolve the complication.

Mesh contraction (shrinkage) is a previously unidentified risk of transvaginal POP repair with mesh that has been reported in the published scientific literature and in adverse event reports to the FDA since the Oct. 20, 2008 FDA Public Health Notification. Reports in the literature associate mesh contraction with vaginal shortening, vaginal tightening and vaginal pain.

Both mesh erosion and mesh contraction may lead to severe pelvic pain, painful sexual intercourse or an inability to engage in sexual intercourse. Also, men may experience irritation and pain to the penis during sexual intercourse when the mesh is exposed in mesh erosion.

The complications associated with the use of surgical mesh for POP repair have not been linked to a single brand of mesh.

Recommendations for Health Care Providers:

As stated in the Oct. 20, 2008 Public Health Notification, the FDA continues to recommend that health care providers should:

Obtain specialized training for each mesh placement technique, and be aware of the risks of surgical mesh.
Be vigilant for potential adverse events from the mesh, especially erosion and infection.
Watch for complications associated with the tools used in transvaginal placement, especially bowel, bladder and blood vessel perforations.
Inform patients that implantation of surgical mesh is permanent, and that some complications associated with the implanted mesh may require additional surgery that may or may not correct the complication.
Inform patients about the potential for serious complications and their effect on quality of life, including pain during sexual intercourse, scarring, and narrowing of the vaginal wall in POP repair using surgical mesh.
Provide patients with a copy of the patient labeling from the surgical mesh manufacturer if available.
In addition, the FDA also recommends that health care providers:

Recognize that in most cases, POP can be treated successfully without mesh thus avoiding the risk of mesh-related complications.
Choose mesh surgery only after weighing the risks and benefits of surgery with mesh versus all surgical and non-surgical alternatives.
Consider these factors before placing surgical mesh:
Surgical mesh is a permanent implant that may make future surgical repair more challenging.
A mesh procedure may put the patient at risk for requiring additional surgery or for the development of new complications.
Removal of mesh due to mesh complications may involve multiple surgeries and significantly impair the patient’s quality of life. Complete removal of mesh may not be possible and may not result in complete resolution of complications, including pain.
Mesh placed abdominally for POP repair may result in lower rates of mesh complications compared to transvaginal POP surgery with mesh.
Inform the patient about the benefits and risks of non-surgical options, non-mesh surgery, surgical mesh placed abdominally and the likely success of these alternatives compared to transvaginal surgery with mesh.
Notify the patient if mesh will be used in her POP surgery and provide the patient with information about the specific product used.
Ensure that the patient understands the postoperative risks and complications of mesh surgery as well as limited long-term outcomes data.

Recommendations for Patients:
Before Surgery
Be aware of the risks associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP. Know that having a mesh surgery may put you at risk for needing additional surgery due to mesh-related complications. In a small number of patients, repeat surgery may not resolve complications.

Ask your surgeon about all POP treatment options, including surgical repair with or without mesh and non-surgical options, and understand why your surgeon may be recommending treatment of POP with mesh.

In addition, ask your surgeon these questions before you agree to have surgery in which surgical mesh will be used:

Are you planning to use mesh in my surgery?
Why do you think I am a good candidate for surgical mesh?
Why is surgical mesh being chosen for my repair?
What are the alternatives to transvaginal surgical mesh repair for POP, including non-surgical options?
What are the pros and cons of using surgical mesh in my particular case? How likely is it that my repair could be successfully performed without using surgical mesh?
Will my partner be able to feel the surgical mesh during sexual intercourse? What if the surgical mesh erodes through my vaginal wall?
If surgical mesh is to be used, how often have you implanted this particular product? What results have your other patients had with this product?
What can I expect to feel after surgery and for how long?
Which specific side effects should I report to you after the surgery?
What if the mesh surgery doesn’t correct my problem?
If I develop a complication, will you treat it or will I be referred to a specialist experienced with surgical mesh complications?
If I have a complication related to the surgical mesh, how likely is it that the surgical mesh could be removed and what could be the consequences?
If a surgical mesh is to be used, is there patient information that comes with the product, and can I have a copy?
After Surgery

Continue with your annual and other routine check-ups and follow-up care. There is no need to take additional action if you are satisfied with your surgery and are not having complications or symptoms.
Notify your health care provider if you have complications or symptoms, including persistent vaginal bleeding or discharge, pelvic or groin pain or pain with sex, that last after your follow-up appointment.
Let your health care provider know you have surgical mesh, especially if you plan to have another surgery or other medical procedures.
Talk to your health care provider about any questions you may have.
If you had POP surgery, but do not know whether your surgeon used mesh, ask your health care provider at your next scheduled visit.

FDA Activities:
The FDA is working in several areas to assess and improve the safety and effectiveness of urogynecologic mesh products. The FDA will:

Convene the Obstetrics-Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Device Advisory Committee, on September 8-9, 2011.The panel will discuss and make recommendations regarding the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal surgical mesh for POP and SUI.
Explore regulatory solutions to answer questions about the safety and effectiveness of urogynecologic mesh products that are now being marketed and those that will be reviewed for marketing in the future.
Continue to monitor adverse events reported to FDA associated with surgical mesh used to repair POP and SUI, as well as assessing any and all data as it becomes available.
Reporting Problems to the FDA:
Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices. If you suspect a problem with surgical mesh, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program. Health care personnel employed by facilities that are subject to the FDA's user facility reporting requirements2 should follow the reporting procedures established by their facilities. Device manufacturers must comply with the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations3.

To help us learn as much as possible about the adverse events associated with surgical mesh to repair POP and SUI, please include the following information in your reports, if available:

Manufacturer's name
Product name (brand name)
Catalog number
Lot number
Size
Date of implant
Date of explant (if mesh was removed)
Details of the adverse event and medical and/or surgical interventions (if required)
Type of procedure (e.g., anterior or posterior repair, sacral colpopexy, sling procedure for SUI)
Surgical approach: (e.g., vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic)
Reason for mesh implantation: (e.g., POP of the uterus, bladder, rectum, vaginal apex or bowel, SUI)
Specific postoperative symptoms experienced by the patient with time of onset and follow-up treatment
Contact Information:
If you have questions about this communication, please contact the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance (DSMICA) at DSMICA@FDA.HHS.GOV, 800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100.

This document reflects the FDA’s current analysis of available information, in keeping with our commitment to inform the public about ongoing safety reviews of medical devices.

-Additional Information

Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Implants4
Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (July 2011) (PDF - 243KB)5
Press Release: Surgical placement of mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse poses risks6
Federal Register Notice: Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh7
Federal Register Notice Ammendment: Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh8

http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

FDA Whose who in adhesion barriers

FDA Home; Medical Devices Databases Establishment Registration  Device Listing1 to 12 of 12 Results
Results per Page 35102550100500
Product Code : MCN

Establishment
Name
Registration Number Current
Registration Yr
BAXTER AG AUSTRIA
9616848 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - ADEPT
Manufacturer

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION CA/USA
2032282 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - Adept
Specification Developer

Covidien, formerly Confluent Surgical, Inc. MA/USA
3008196149 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - Spray Gel; Spray Shield
Specification Developer

Covidien, formerly US Surgical a divison of Tyco Healthcare CT/USA
1219930 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - Spray Gel; Spray Shield
U.S. Manufacturer of Export Only Devices

ETHICON INC SWITZERLAND
3006795579 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion
Manufacturer

ETHICON INC SWITZERLAND
3003702646 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion
Manufacturer

ETHICON, INC. NJ/USA
2210968 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion
Specification Developer

ETHICON, LLC. PR/USA
2648650 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion
Manufacturer

FZIOMED, INC. CA/USA
2031637 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - Ethicon Intercoat; Oxiplex/AP Gel
U.S. Manufacturer of Export Only Devices

GENZYME CORPORATION MA/USA
1220423 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - Seprafilm Adhesion Barrier
Manufacturer

NORAMCO, INC. GA/USA
1033845 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion
Manufacturer

Pathfinder Cell Therapy, Inc. MA/USA
2248031 2012
barrier, absorable, adhesion - REPEL-CV
Specification Developer

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfrl/rl.cfm?start_search=1&establishmentName=&StateName=&CountryName=
&RegistrationNumber=&OwnerOperatorNumber=&OwnerOperatorName=&ProductCode=MCN&DeviceName=&ProprietaryName=&establishmentType=&PAGENUM=5 0

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

CONFLUENT SPRAYSHIELD MAUDE Adverse Event Report

Another one!

CONFLUENT SPRAYSHIELD POLYMER KIT WITH SPRAYER SPRAYSHIELD KIT
Catalog Number SP10S01
Event Date 01/21/2011
Event Type Injury Patient Outcome Other;
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).


Event Description
According to the reporter: the pt experienced heavy underbelly pains two days post-operatively. The pains were described as burning. At the fourth post-operative day, the stomach had to be re-opened. There were syrinxes that were discovered where the product had been applied, which were operated upon. The pt was released from the hospital free of pain.


Search Alerts/Recalls



New Search | Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name SPRAYSHIELD POLYMER KIT WITH SPRAYER
Type of Device SPRAYSHIELD KIT
Manufacturer (Section F) CONFLUENT
101a first ave.
waltham MA 02451

Manufacturer (Section D) CONFLUENT
101a first ave.
waltham MA 02451

Manufacturer (Section G) CONFLUENT
101a first ave.

waltham MA 02451

Manufacturer Contact terry callahan
60 middletown ave.
north haven , CT 06473
(203) 492 -6273

Device Event Key 2070451
MDR Report Key 2037782
Event Key 1934758
Report Number 3003157248-2011-00007
Device Sequence Number 1
Product Code NQR
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,User facility
Reporter Occupation Other
Type of Report Initial
Report Date 01/24/2011
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received 03/23/2011
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Catalogue Number SP10S01
Was Device Available For Evaluation? No
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Was The Report Sent To Manufacturer? No
Date Manufacturer Received 01/24/2011
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Device Not Returned To Manufacturer
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is the Device an Implant? No
Is this an Explanted Device?
Type of Device Usage Unkown


http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2037782

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

FDA Risk of Air or Gas Embolism When Using Air- or Gas- Pressurized Spray Devices

Ummm do you mean like Sprayshield too???????Does Kruschinski know about this...another way to maim his poor patients. Is Carl aware of this too? I'm betting he does not!

FDA Safety Notification: Risk of Air or Gas Embolism When Using Air- or Gas- Pressurized Spray Devices
Date Issued: July 9, 2010


Audience: Surgeons, Operating Room Nurses, and other support personnel in the Operating Room


Products:
Air- or gas-pressurized sprayers are dual syringe products that simultaneously mix and apply two non-homogeneous liquids within a single spray head that is connected to a pressure regulator and a source of compressed air or gas. Air- or gas-pressurized sprayers can be used to mix and apply hemostatic drug or biological products (products that help control bleeding from blood vessels during surgery) including fibrin and non-fibrin sealants.


They include devices such as:


EasySpray and spray set used with Duploject system(Baxter Healthcare Corporation)
Tissomat and spray set used with Duploject system (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)
Evicel application device (Omrix Medical)
FibriJet Aerosol Applicator (MicroMedics)
HemaMyst Surgical Applicator System (Heamacuare Corporation)
MicroMyst Applicator and Air Pump Models 20-5000 and AP-A-6063 (Confluent Surgical)
Vitagel Hemostat Spray Set (Orthovita, Inc.)
Summary of Problem and Scope:
FDA has received reports of air or gas embolisms occurring during or immediately after application of hemostatic drug or biological products using air- or gas- pressurized sprayers. Although rare, the reports describe air embolisms that are life threatening and include one fatality.


These adverse events appear to be related to use of spray devices inconsistent with the approved product labeling and instructions for use. In some reports the device was used at higher than recommended pressure or at a distance too close to the surface of the bleeding site.


Recommendations/Actions:
Given the life-threatening consequences of an air or gas embolism, FDA is recommending that clinicians using air- or gas- pressurized spray devices for application of hemostatic drug or biological products:


Use the applicator, spray set, and pressure control device or regulator as recommended in the labeling or Information For Use (IFU) of the hemostatic agent.
Use an air or gas pressure setting within the range recommended by the manufacturer of the sprayer.
Ensure that distance between the spray head and the tissue surface is not less than the minimum recommended by the manufacturer of the sprayer.
Monitor blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation and end tidal CO 2 for signs of an air or gas embolism.
Make sure the regulators are maintained properly and checked for safe performance regularly.
FDA Activities:
In cooperation with the FDA, Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Omrix Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturers of all fibrin sealants licensed in the U.S., have updated the Warning and Precautions sections of the labels of EVICEL, T isseel and ARTISS to emphasize the risk of air embolism and the need to use the recommended ranges of pressure and distance.


The labeling of the spray devices and non-fibrin hemostatic drug or biological products also includes information on recommended pressures and distances.


Report Problems to FDA:
Prompt reporting of adverse events can help FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical products. If you suspect problems with the use of fibrin sealants and/or air or gas pressurized fibrin sprayers, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program1. Healthcare personnel employed by facilities that are subject to FDA's device user facility reporting requirements2 should follow the reporting procedures established by their facilities.


Contact Information:
If you have questions about this communication, please contact the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance (DSMICA) at DSMICA@FDA.HHS.GOV or 800-638-2041.
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm218523.htm

Monday, May 23, 2011

Adhesiolysis in Repeat Caesarean Delivery Common, Costly

Adhesiolysis in Repeat Caesarean Delivery Common, Costly
Alice Goodman

May 20, 2011 (Washington, DC) — Adhesions from previous Caesarean deliveries severe enough to require adhesiolysis during repeat Caesarean delivery have clinical and economic implications, according to a retrospective review of a large database with discharge data from 60 hospitals in the United States. The data were reported here at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 59th Annual Clinical Meeting.

The matched cohort study found that for patients who required adhesiolysis, the cost per patient was $300 more, operative length was longer, hospital stay was longer, and postoperative complications were more frequent.

"Adhesions are a significant complication of surgery. C-sections are increasingly common in the United States, and anywhere from 30% to 50% of patients have adhesions," explained Michael Broder, MD, from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine. He estimated that treating complications of adhesions related to Caesarean deliveries that are severe enough for adhesiolysis costs $25 million to $30 million per year.
Read The Rest

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Study Details Causes of High Maternal Death Rates

This is just an expert from the full article.....please click here to read the full article

By Sharon Johnson
WeNews senior correspondent
Tuesday, April 26, 2011

In the United States 1 out of every 7 maternal deaths occurs six weeks after delivery, so some deaths might have been prevented if the woman received more follow-up care.


"On the other hand, some women may have received too many interventions," Bingham said. "Surgical interventions may have reached a level of overuse in the United States. Although there has been a 50 percent increase in the number of Cesarean sections since the 1990s, we have not seen any data to show that this leads to improvements in outcomes for the mother or baby. C-sections carry all the risks of abdominal surgery, such as infection and hemorrhage and life-long complications, such as adhesions."


The city's report found that 79 percent of all mothers who died from pregnancy-related causes gave birth via C-section. Although the report did not break the C-section data down by race or ethnicity, it did note that C-sections were the most common method of delivery among women who died from hemorrhage, infections and embolism.

Friday, February 11, 2011

FDA Mulls Health Warning on Powdered Gloves

By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
Published: February 08, 2011


Health risks associated with powdered medical gloves -- for professionals as well as patients -- may soon be highlighted on their packages, according to the FDA.

In a draft guidance document for manufacturers, the FDA proposed that powdered surgical and patient examination gloves carry a warning that the products may cause health problems ranging from latex allergies to granulomas and adhesions in patients.

The guidance won't be formally adopted until after the agency digests comments on the proposal, which it is accepting through April. Technically, guidance documents are not enforceable, but most manufacturers follow their recommendations scrupulously.

According to the draft, the FDA is reacting to reports on adverse effects associated with powdered medical gloves.

In 1997, an FDA study found a range of allergic reactions that could be caused by these products, which include gloves made of natural rubber latex, nitrile, vinyl, and polychloroprene.

The powder particles -- usually cornstarch -- can carry latex molecules from the natural rubber gloves, triggering or exacerbating allergies in some patients and professionals, the FDA found.

Powders on nonlatex gloves have also been the subject of adverse event reports more recently, the FDA indicated, citing more than 30 studies. These include impaired wound healing, inflammation, granulomas, and adhesions in patients.

Some have shown that hospitals switching to unpowdered gloves have reduced allergy development and respiratory problems, the FDA added.

The agency also noted, however, that "this has not been a universal finding," and the studies have had significant methodological limitations.

Nevertheless, the agency is proposing that manufacturers include the following warning on glove boxes:

"Powdered gloves may lead to foreign body reactions and the formation of granulomas in patients. In addition, the powder used on gloves may contribute to the development of irritant dermatitis and Type IV allergy, and on latex gloves may serve as a carrier for airborne natural latex leading to sensitization of glove users."

If the guidance is adopted, manufacturers are urged to place the warning on product labeling within six months.

Monday, February 07, 2011

A Device Preemption Quickie -- Heisner v. Genzyme

In Heisner v. Genzyme, No. 08-C-593, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37322 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2009), Heisner allegedly died as a result of an allergic reaction to Seprafilm, an anti-adhesive surgical barrier implanted in her body during a surgery. Seprafilm is a Class III medical device approved by the FDA through the premarket approval process.

Heisner's surviving spouse and estate filed the usual product liability claims against Genzyme, which manufactured Seprafilm. The trial court granted Genzyme's motion to dismiss on the ground of federal preemption.

Two items merit quick note: First, plaintiff asserted that his claims were "parallel" to, rather than "different from or in addition to" the federal requirements applicable to Seprafilm, because Genzyme had allegedly failed to report to the FDA (1) the death of plaintiff's decedent, and (2) a clinical trial protocol and related warnings finalized after Heisner's death. The trial court didn't have to address the "parallel requirements" issue, because events that took place after Heisner's death could not possibly have proximately caused Heisner's injury. Id. at *5.

Second, plaintiff's express warranty claims were based on statements made by Genzyme in (1) the package inserts for Seprafilm, and (2) the PMA protocol for certain Seprafilm clinical trials -- both of which had been approved by the FDA. Because the alleged warranties were based on statements that had been approved by the FDA, the court found those allegations of breach of warranty to be preempted. Id. at *8.

We'll include this one in the ever-expanding (New) Medical Device Preemption Scorecard.
Posted by Beck/Herrmann at 8:00 AM Labels: Medical Device, Preemption

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Acute kidney injury due to osmotic nephrosis following intraoperative placement of an intraperitoneal antiadhesive barrier.

Am J Kidney Dis. 2011 Feb;57(2):304-7.

Acute kidney injury due to osmotic nephrosis following intraoperative placement of an intraperitoneal antiadhesive barrier.
Economidou D, Stavrinou E, Giamalis P, Dimitriadis C, Economou S, Memmos D.

Department of Nephrology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Hippokration Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Abstract
In recent years, a common strategy for the prevention of postsurgical intra-abdominal adhesions has been intrasurgical placement of adhesion barriers into the peritoneal cavity. Osmotic agents, such as various polysaccharides, frequently are used as antiadhesive materials. The effects of these materials on kidney function have not yet been studied. We report a case of an individual with pre-existing chronic kidney disease who developed acute kidney injury after surgical placement of an antiadhesive barrier of macromolecular polysaccharides. A kidney biopsy, performed because of persistent kidney failure, showed tubular cell lesions compatible with osmotic nephrosis lesions. This case suggests that use of polysaccharide-containing antiadhesive barriers can induce severe kidney damage. Such barriers should be used with caution in patients with abnormal kidney function to prevent irreversible damage.

Copyright © 2011 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PMID: 21251542 [PubMed - in process]


LinkOut - more resources

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Surgical gel gets blame for pain

By RUTH HILL - The Dominion Post


NATALIE SLADE/Dominion Post
SCARRED: Carla Gardiner had to have a four-hour operation to remove the scar tissue caused by anti-scarring gel during her initial surgery
Related Links'Scarring more painful than original illness'


A surgical spray gel that may have left hundreds of New Zealand women with painful internal scarring and fertility problems has been modified but doctors have not been told why.
Wellington gynaecologist Hanifa Koya, who first raised concerns about Confluent SprayGel in 2005, accuses the manufacturer of evading its responsibility toward "millions of women" worldwide who have been potentially injured by the gel.
The blue gel renamed SprayShield was supposed to prevent scarring during gynaecological surgery, but left some women with their reproductive organs "super-glued" together.
Up to 1200 New Zealand women were treated with the gel between 2004 and 2008.
Mrs Koya has learned that Covidien, which manufactures and distributes the gel, has replaced the suspect dye, methylene blue, with a vegetable dye. "The fact they withdrew it voluntarily suggests they know there was something wrong with it."
She began using the gel in October 2002, but stopped in April 2006 after her rate of repeat keyhole laparoscopies went from under 2 per cent to 10 per cent. Since switching to an alternative product, she has not repeated any laparoscopies, but patients were still returning from four years ago with "sheets of scarring".
She complained to American manufacturer Confluent Surgical and wrote repeatedly to MedSafe the Government's drug safety agency and professional bodies asking for action, but says she was stonewalled.
Medsafe investigated but accepted the manufacturers' assurances that the product was safe and that clinical trials were continuing.
"[But] methylene blue has never been tested on humans and the gel has never been approved for use in the United States," Mrs Koya said.
At the World Congress on Endometriosis in Melbourne last year, Mrs Koya was appalled to meet other specialists who had stopped using the gel because of complications.
ACC has not accepted any claims by victims for treatment injuries. Most of her patients' repeat operations which cost between $6000 and $12,000 have been covered by insurance, and she has waived her own fee for those with partial cover.
"That's a huge cost to the health system, it leads to increased insurance premiums and makes it harder for people to have their claims accepted. Ultimately it's patients who pay the price."
Health Minister Tony Ryall declined to be interviewed, referring comment to Medsafe.
Medsafe group manager Stewart Jessamine said because the gel was classified as a medical device under the Medicines Act rather than a drug, the legislation did not allow Medsafe to assess its safety or efficacy before it entered the market.

"However ... it has been assessed to very high standards by medical device regulatory authorities in Europe and Australia."
Some studies had showed increased rates of complications, including those described by Mrs Koya, he said. "However, there was no evidence that the rate of adverse effects was significantly different from that expected historically."
TIMELINE
2001: American-made Confluent SprayGel approved for use in Europe and subsequently Australia and New Zealand but not the United States.
OCTOBER 2002: Wellington gynaecologist Hanifa Koya begins using the gel.
2005: Mrs Koya first notices patients coming for repeat surgery and contacts the company, which tells her the product is being monitored in clinical trials.
APRIL 2006: Mrs Koya stops using the gel because of ongoing concerns. She alerts the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring. Both refer her to Medsafe, the Government's drug-safety body.
FEBRUARY 2007: Mrs Koya complains to Medsafe.
NOVEMBER 2007: After reviewing international literature, Medsafe finds some reports of complications similar to those described by Mrs Koya. It asks the company include "additional precautions" on packaging but says the product is still safe.
DECEMBER 2007: Mrs Koya writes to the college again with her concerns.
JANUARY 2008: The college says Medsafe appears to have investigated the issue thoroughly.
FEBRUARY 2008: An affected patient talks to The Dominion Post and Mrs Koya speaks publicly about her concerns.
APRIL 2008: Mrs Koya writes to Medical Assurance Committee of the college.
JUNE 2008: Pharmaceutical company Covidien Tyco takes over distributing the gel in New Zealand from Intermed Medical.
AUGUST 2008: Mrs Koya writes to the health and disability commissioner, but is told the matter is outside the commission's jurisdiction.
OCTOBER 2008: Covidien relaunches the product as SprayShield Adhesion Barrier, which uses a vegetable dye instead of chemical dye methylene blue. The gel is available in Europe, the Middle East, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand but still not approved for use in the US.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/2480461/Scarring-more-painful-than-original-illness

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Adhesions News


Doctor's advice - Boyfriend pressuring me to smokeJamaica Gleaner, Jamaica - Nov 28, 2008In a lot of young guys, the foreskin is still attached to the head of the organ by little bands of tissue, which are called 'adhesions'. In the teen years, ...

Six Back-Saving Tips for Holiday ShoppersPR Web (press release), WA - Nov 25, 2008The therapy has been shown in peer-reviewed medical journals to reduce adhesions, decrease pain, and restore function. It has proven effective for many ...
Treat golfer's elbow with Graston TechniquePacific Daily News, GU - Nov 24, 2008These adhesions are commonly called knots or myofascial trigger points and can be very painful. I have not examined you, but that spot you press on to ...
Omrix Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Q3 2008 Earnings Call TranscriptSeeking Alpha, NY - Nov 24, 2008These patients were selected due to the detrimental effect ovarian adhesions can have on a woman's ability to conceive as well as the clinical revenue [ph] ...OMRI
Plant Antioxidant, Lycopene May Protect Germ Cells from Free ...MediNEWS.Direct!, India - Nov 24, 2008Adhesions, fibrous bands formed during the process of healing after surgery, is one of the common causes of tubular dysfunction, which leads to infertility. ...
Student News - Nov. 23Hudson Hub-Times, Ohio - Nov 23, 2008Her research centered on the difficulty of measuring the effectiveness of compounds used in the prevention of adhesions following surgery. ...
Range of motion exercises can prevent frozen shoulderBCLocalNews, Canada - Nov 22, 2008These adhesions cause pain and progressive loss of shoulder motion. Shoulder motion is restricted in a specific pattern, both actively (when you move your ...
Search this blogScienceBlogs - Nov 22, 2008To generate traction the actin is hooked upto these large focal adhesions that line the sides of the membrane and help the cell cling to solids from the ...
Garden Retail Research finds tomato benefitsHorticulture Week, UK - Nov 21, 2008It may also help prevent adhesions in women, where scar tissue causes internal organs to stick together after surgery, according to research at Wayne State ...
Appearance of a Gastrocolic Fistula on Sonography Including Color FlowJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine (subscription) - Nov 20, 2008During the operation, the gastrocolic fistula was not identified because of severe adhesions adjacent to the mass. Accordingly, the surgeon performed ...

Saturday, September 06, 2008

FDA:Potential Signals of Serious Risks/New Safety Information Identified by the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS)

January - March 2008

The table below lists the names of products and potential signals of serious risks/new safety information that were identified for these products during the period January - March 2008 in the AERS database. The appearance of a drug on this list does not mean that FDA has concluded that the drug has the listed risk. It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk. If after further evaluation the FDA determines that the drug is associated with the risk, it may take a variety of actions including requiring changes to the labeling of the drug, requiring development of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or gathering additional data to better characterize the risk.
FDA wants to emphasize that the listing of a drug and a potential safety issue on this Web site does not mean that FDA is suggesting prescribers should not prescribe the drug or that patients taking the drug should stop taking the medication. Patients who have questions about their use of the identified drug should contact their health care provider. FDA will complete its evaluation of each potential signal/new safety information and issue additional public communications as appropriate.

Potential Signals of Serious Risks/New Safety Information Identified by the Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) January - March 2008

Product Name: Active Ingredient (Trade)or Product Class
Potential Signal of Serious Risk/New Safety Information

Arginine Hydrochloride Injection (R-Gene 10)
Pediatric overdose due to labeling / packaging confusion

Desflurane (Suprane)
Cardiac arrest

Duloxetine (Cymbalta)
Urinary retention

Etravirine (Intelence)
Hemarthrosis

Fluorouracil Cream (Carac) and Ketoconazole Cream (Kuric)
Adverse events due to name confusion

Heparin
Anaphylactic-type reactions

Icodextrin (Extraneal)
Hypoglycemia

Insulin U-500 (Humulin R)
Dosing confusion

Ivermectin (Stromectol) and Warfarin
Drug interaction

Lapatinib (Tykerb)
Hepatotoxicity

Lenalidomide (Revlimid)
Stevens Johnson Syndrome

Natalizumab (Tysabri)
Skin melanomas

Nitroglycerin (Nitrostat)
Overdose due to labeling confusion

Octreotide Acetate Depot (Sandostatin LAR)
Ileus

Oxycodone Hydrochloride Controlled-Release (Oxycontin)
Drug misuse, abuse and overdose

Perflutren Lipid Microsphere (Definity)
Cardiopulmonary reactions

Phenytoin Injection (Dilantin)
Purple Glove Syndrome

Quetiapine (Seroquel)
Overdose due to sample pack labeling confusion

Telbivudine (Tyzeka)
Peripheral neuropathy

Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Blockers
Cancers in children and young adults

http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/potential_signals/potential_signals_2008Q1.htm