LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/Cybersecurity (Not Devices) Triggers FDA Panel Meeting
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

Cybersecurity (Not Devices) Triggers FDA Panel Meeting

July 18, 2019 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Cybersecurity (Not Devices) Triggers FDA Panel Meeting
Source: Wikimedia Commons and BigInsurance
Secondary

It’s been more than a year and a half since the FDA’s Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel met. That was the panel meeting to consider the premarket approval application (PMA) for the Barricaid Annular Closure Device by Intrinsic Therapeutics. The device was approved.

There are no ortho panel meetings scheduled for the rest of 2019.

However, the agency announced in June 27, 2019 that it is convening the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee on September 10, 2019 to discuss and make recommendations on the topic “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Communication That Empowers Patients.”

The agency notes that medical devices are increasingly connected to the internet, hospital networks, and other medical devices.

The announcement came on the same day that Medtronic said it was recalling certain MiniMed insulin pumps due to “potential security vulnerabilities.”

This isn’t the first time this has been on the FDA’s radar. The agency, according to fdalawblog.com, has issued at least six other Safety Communications since 2015 about specific medical device cybersecurity issues, including issues related to other Medtronic devices.

Agency leaders will seek recommendations to “address which factors should be considered by FDA and industry when communicating cybersecurity risks to patients and to the public, including but not limited to the content, phrasing, the methods used to disseminate the message and the timing of that communication. The recommendations will also address concerns patients have about changes to their devices to reduce cybersecurity risks as well as the role of other stakeholders such as healthcare providers in communicating cybersecurity risks to patients.”

Back in October 2018, we reported on the FDA’s release of a cybersecurity “playbook” for health care organizations that outlines steps organizations can take to be better prepared for a cyberattack that involves medical devices.

Advertisement

As an example, the playbook cites how the global ransomware event known as WannaCry, which targeted healthcare organizations, demonstrated how the performance of vulnerable medical devices, “may be compromised by an exploit, whether it intentionally targets the healthcare system or is purely opportunistic.”

“Similarly, other attacks such as Petya/NotPetya have highlighted key challenges in preparedness and response across the healthcare and public health critical infrastructure sector.”

Public comments will be scheduled between approximately 10:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. on September 10, 2019. Those interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present.

You can contact Letise Williams, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5441, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, letise.williams@fda.hhs.gov, 301-796-8398, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, D.C. area), for more information.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy