June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
A Comparison of Regulatory Approval Time for Ophthalmic Devices in the United States and Japan
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ravi Parikh
    Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Anand Gopal
    Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Christopher Teng
    Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Lucian Del Priore
    Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Joseph S. Ross
    Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Ravi Parikh, None; Anand Gopal, None; Christopher Teng, None; Lucian Del Priore, None; Joseph Ross, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (F), Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (F), Food and Drug Administration (F), Johnson and Johnson (F), Laura and John Arnold Foundation (F), Medtronic, Inc. (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 5076. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ravi Parikh, Anand Gopal, Christopher Teng, Lucian Del Priore, Joseph S. Ross; A Comparison of Regulatory Approval Time for Ophthalmic Devices in the United States and Japan. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):5076.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose : Medical device approval in the United States is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is frequently criticized for its approval processes, including perceived slow regulatory reviews times and delayed approvals when compared with other developed nations. In Japan, medical device approvals are regulated by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), using similar evidentiary processes and standards as FDA. We sought to compare the regulatory review time required for approval of ophthalmic medical devices between the United States and Japan.

Methods : We used the most recent publically available data for initial medical device approvals from PMDA and FDA (2007-2015) to identify ophthalmic devices approved in both countries. Devices were compared regardless of approval track in their respective nations. We compared days of regulatory review for each agency using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and characterized country of first approval using descriptive statistics. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro Version 11.2.0 (SAS Institute Inc.).

Results : From 2007-2015, 29 ophthalmic devices were approved by both the FDA and PMDA; 34.5% (10/29) of these were contact lenses, 31.4% (9/29) were surgical lasers/devices (8 lasers and 1 microkeratome), 24.1% (7/29) were intraocular lenses (IOLs), and 10.3% (3/29) were glaucoma drainage devices. Overall, regulatory review times were similar across PMDA (median: 238 days; range: 52-650) and FDA (median: 192 days; range: 54-960) approvals (p=0.48). Likewise, regulatory review times did not differ significantly between agencies when stratified by device type: (contact lenses, p=0.56; IOLs, p= 0.30; surgical lasers/devices, p=0.10; glaucoma drainage devices, p=1.00). However, among these devices, the large majority (26/29; 89.7%) were first approved in the United States, whereas just 10.3% (3/29) were first approved in Japan.

Conclusions : While the FDA and PMDA had similar regulatory review times to approve ophthalmic devices, nearly 90% of all devices are approved first for use in the United States.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.