I finally had a chance to catch my breath at work and can get back to blogging! There's a lot to catch up on because a number of interesting mental health issues have been in the news. In particular, this article describes last week's meetings of an FDA advisory panel to review the classification of ECT (electroschock therapy) machines.
When the FDA put the current medical device rating system into effect in the 1970s it rated ECT machines as Class III devices, meaning rigorous safety testing should have been required for market approval. However, ECT had been around for decades and so the FDA grandfathered in the machines to exempt them from costly new trials. Recently, the Government Accountability Office eliminated this grandfathering, forcing the FDA to either reclassify the devices--in effect lowering restrictions--or require new (and costly) safety tests. After two days of meetings the advisory panel decided to maintain the Class III rating. As a result, new safety trials are necessary to keep the machines on the market.
Psychiatrists worry that there could be an incipient ECT "shortage" because the two companies that make the devices may be not be able to afford the necessary clinical trials. Most patients' rights groups, however, are pleased with the FDA's decision to require new testing. These ECT "survivors" are concerned about memory loss, ECT's most severe side effect, and would like to see more data on the efficacy/safety profile of the treatment.
This tension between short term need and long term understanding is difficult to resolve. My first thought was that the FDA should have reclassified the devices in order to keep ECT widely available because ECT is thought to be the most effective and fastest acting treatment for severe depression. Eliminating it as an option is like taking morphine and other powerful painkillers away from doctors, asking them to rely on over-the-counter painkillers instead. The FDA, however, is taking the long-term view that new testing will ultimately clarify the risk/benefit profile of the devices, allowing doctors to make more informed decisions in prescribing the treatment.
The new trials will have to be financed by a deep pocket--probably the government since ECT machine manufactures may not be able afford the clinical trials themselves. Let's hope the trials happen and, in the long run, we have more information about a treatment that (historically at least) has been a critical item in psychiatrists' tool kits.
Recent Comments