Medical Design and Outsourcing

  • Home
  • Medical Device Business
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Financial
    • Regulatory
  • Applications
    • Cardiovascular
    • Devices
    • Imaging
    • Implantables
    • Medical Equipment
    • Orthopedic
    • Surgical
  • Technologies
    • Contract Manufacturing
    • Components
    • Electronics
    • Extrusions
    • Materials
    • Motion Control
    • Prototyping
    • Pumps
    • Tubing
  • Med Tech Resources
    • Subscribe to Print Magazine
    • DeviceTalks Tuesdays
    • Digital Editions
    • eBooks
    • Manufacturer Search
    • Medical Device Handbook
    • MedTech 100 Index
    • Podcasts
    • Print Subscription
    • The Big 100
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
    • Video
  • 2022 Leadership in MedTech
    • 2022 Leadership Voting!
    • 2021 Winners
    • 2020 Winners
  • Women in Medtech

FDA says Philips knew about toxic foam for years before massive recall

November 16, 2021 By Jim Hammerand

PhilipsThe FDA said it observed potential violations of federal medical device safety rules when inspecting a Philips Respironics manufacturing facility connected to the Class I recall of more than 15 million respiratory devices.

The FDA recently requested additional safety testing on replacement materials and issued a Form 483. The form details how Philips and its foam supplier were aware for years that polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam could break down and potentially enter a device’s air pathway, causing health problems for users.

In the Form 483, FDA alerted management at the Royal Philips (NYSE:PHG) subsidiary of conditions that the inspector considered possible violations of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or related regulations. The post-inspection report is not a determination of wrongdoing and will be considered by the FDA along with any evidence or documents collected from the facility and responses offered by Philips. (Learn more about Form 483 reports from the FDA.)

“We will work closely with the FDA to clarify and follow up on the inspectional findings and its recent requests related to comprehensive testing,” Royal Philips CEO Frans van Houten said in a news release on Sunday. “Until we have concluded these discussions, we are not able to publicly provide further details on these responses.”

The FDA redacted parts of the 28-page report, citing a public records law exemption to protect trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information.

The redactions do not obscure the inspector’s concerns. They include: deficient procedures for corrective and preventative action, failed design validation, inadequate design change procedures, reporting deficiencies (the failure to report in writing to the FDA a correction or removal conducted to reduce a risk to health posed by a device), inadequate procedures to ensure products and services conform to specific requirements, and failure to evaluate and select potential consultants based on their ability to meet specific requirements.

The first 13 pages detail the inspector’s observation of inadequate risk analysis. The report says Philps Respironics launched no investigation, health hazard evaluation, risk analysis or design review when it learned another Philips entity implemented a preventative maintenance servicing procedure on Trilogy ventilator products in 2015 following issues with foam degradation.

The inspector found at least 14 instances from April 2016 to January 2021 where the company “was aware of issues and concerns related to potential foam degradation and/or Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions with various Sleep and Respiratory care devices.”

Testing showed the foam used in Trilogy devices was susceptible to degradation when exposed to high humidity and temperature. In 2019, a DreamStation 1 CPAP vice failed VOC tests due to excessive formaldehyde emissions. In 2020, a biological risk assessment following complaints of degraded foam in SystemOne ventilators warned that “the biological and toxicological risks from exposure to degraded PE-PUR foam are of concern and the severity of harm is crucial with respect to both the 30 kg and 70 kg patient populations.”

Despite these and other warnings, the FDA inspector said Philips Respironics made no further design changes, corrective actions or field corrections within an appropriate time frame, if at all.

Another device not covered by the recall, an A Series CPAP containing the silicone-based foam that Philips is using to repair recalled devices, failed a VOC test in August 2021. A Philips report warned that pediatric patients would potentially be exposed to higher concentrations of compounds of concern (due to carcinogenic/mutagenic properties). The FDA, however, redacted the number and kind of chemicals that were identified and confirmed. The FDA said Philips did not document any health hazard evaluation, risk analysis or design review following the failed test, leading the FDA to request Philips hire an independent lab to study the safety of the replacement foam.

The FDA said a review of Philips consumer complaints dating back to 2008 included more than 222,000 complaints with terms related to the recall, such as contaminants, particles, foam, debris, airway, particular, airpath and black. More than 20,000 of the complaints involved Trilogy devices between 2008 and 2017.

“Potential foam degradation in Trilogy ventilator devices is not an isolated incident, and you also have not documented a detailed rationale for why harm is not likely to occur again, as required by your Health Hazard Evaluation’s instructions,” the FDA report told Philips.

The FDA found emails between Philips and its raw foam supplier that showed Philips was made aware of foam degradation issues in October 2015, issues that the unidentified supplier confirmed in 2016.

Philips Respironics acknowledged receiving “limited complaints related to foam degradation [in the years prior to 2021], which were evaluated and addressed on a case-by-case basis. Issues relating to VOCs started to surface more recently, with testing and interpretation subsequently taking place with certified third-party experts, leading to the actions in the first half of 2021.”

Philips launched the recall on June 14. The FDA inspected the Murrysville, Pennsylvania Philips Respironics facility on 21 separate days from Aug. 26 through Nov. 9.

Madris Kinard, a former FDA public health analyst with expertise in post-market surveillance, said she had been following the adverse event reports for the Philips devices and reviewed the Form 483.

“It seems they were quite slow to take action. … This recall was far overdue, in my opinion, even with the concern that there might be a shortage of CPAPs available on the market if a recall had been initiated,” she said. “There are actions a company can take, with the help of the FDA, to help mitigate concerns like this. It doesn’t appear that the company worked with the FDA in any kind of collaborative fashion, to make a good faith effort to inform consumers 2-3 years ago when they knew of the issues.”

In October, Philips said it made approximately 750,000 repair kits and replacement devices, of which at least 250,000 reached customers. This week, the company said it did not expect the FDA’s request for more testing to delay the repair-and-replace campaign, with testing expected to occur by December.

The FDA is not recommending patients stop using devices that have been through the repair-and-replace program. The FDA said it will share test results as soon as they are available. More information is available for patients here and here.

Devices involved in the Philips recall include:

  • Continuous non-life-supporting ventilator devices including the DreamStation ASV, DreamStation ST, AVAPS, SystemOne ASV4, C-Series ASV, C-Series S/T and AVAPS, OmniLab Advanced+
  • In-facility continuous ventilator devices including the Philips Respironics E30 with humidifier
  • Noncontinuous ventilators including the SystemOne (Q-Series), DreamStation, DreamStation Go, Dorma 400, Dorma 500, and REMstar SE Auto)
  • Mechanical ventilation devices including the Trilogy 100, Trilogy 200, Garbin Plus, Aeris, LifeVent 200, BiPAP V30, BiPAP A30/Hybrid/A40

Related Articles Read More >

BinaxNow COVID-19 Ag Card
FDA issues new COVID-19 testing guidance to avoid false negatives
A lateral flow assay test for measuring COVID-19 immunity
COVID-19 immunity test developers at MIT seek diagnostic manufacturer
Boston Scientific whistleblower launches corruption investigation
EtO sterilized device
FDA reports sterilization challenge progress as EPA takes aim at EtO emissions

DeviceTalks Weekly.

August 12, 2022
DTW – Medtronic’s Mauri brings years of patient care to top clinical, regulatory, scientific post
See More >

MDO Digital Edition

Digital Edition

Subscribe to Medical Design & Outsourcing. Bookmark, share and interact with the leading medical design engineering magazine today.

MEDTECH 100 INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
DeviceTalks

DeviceTalks is a conversation among medical technology leaders. It's events, podcasts, webinars and one-on-one exchanges of ideas & insights.

DeviceTalks

New MedTech Resource

Medical Tubing

Enewsletter Subscriptions

Enewsletter Subscriptions

MassDevice

Mass Device

The Medical Device Business Journal. MassDevice is the leading medical device news business journal telling the stories of the devices that save lives.

Visit Website
MDO ad
Medical Design and Outsourcing
  • MassDevice
  • DeviceTalks
  • MedTech100 Index
  • Medical Tubing + Extrusion
  • Medical Design Sourcing
  • Drug Delivery Business News
  • Drug Discovery & Development
  • Pharmaceutical Processing World
  • R&D World
  • About Us/Contact
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to Print Magazine
  • Subscribe to E-newsletter
  • Attend our Monthly Webinars
  • Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
  • Join our DeviceTalks Tuesdays Discussion

Copyright © 2022 WTWH Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media LLC. Site Map | Privacy Policy | RSS

Search Medical Design & Outsourcing

  • Home
  • Medical Device Business
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Financial
    • Regulatory
  • Applications
    • Cardiovascular
    • Devices
    • Imaging
    • Implantables
    • Medical Equipment
    • Orthopedic
    • Surgical
  • Technologies
    • Contract Manufacturing
    • Components
    • Electronics
    • Extrusions
    • Materials
    • Motion Control
    • Prototyping
    • Pumps
    • Tubing
  • Med Tech Resources
    • Subscribe to Print Magazine
    • DeviceTalks Tuesdays
    • Digital Editions
    • eBooks
    • Manufacturer Search
    • Medical Device Handbook
    • MedTech 100 Index
    • Podcasts
    • Print Subscription
    • The Big 100
    • Webinars / Digital Events
    • Whitepapers
    • Video
  • 2022 Leadership in MedTech
    • 2022 Leadership Voting!
    • 2021 Winners
    • 2020 Winners
  • Women in Medtech