The story of Cranial
Electrical Stimulation (CES) in North America
is a tale of government intrigue. CES technology applies gentle and
pleasant-feeling frequencies, using electrodes that are usually attached to the
earlobes, to balance neurotransmitters in the brain. Decades ago, one
pioneering company for this technology decided to get FDA approval, in order to
make claims beyond pain relief. This century old technology, originally known
as Electro-sleep, has hundreds of research studies behind it and has been in
common use over many decades. Studies show that CES helps with depression,
learning disorders, insomnia and even addictions. It has been well proven to be
a safe and effective technology, which can readily be used at home. And yet,
thirty years after it first entered the market in the US, CES companies continue to have
an uphill battle with the FDA.
Categorized by Risk
As background, health or
medical devices are categorized according to risk. The “risk” is based on what
claims are made for the device, how it will be used, and the danger of the
device itself. An example of a Class I device, the safest category, would be a
tongue depressor. An example of a Class II device would be an electronic
instrument such as a TENS microcurrent device. Examples of Class III devices
are implanted devices and lasers for surgery on corneas.
510k Application or Pre Market Approval (PMA)
To get approval to market
a device in the US,
either a 510k application or a Pre-Market Approval (PMA) application is
required. The 510k process is the simpler of the two application processes. All
a company has to demonstrate is that the device is safe and effective and it is
substantially equivalent to other devices already on the market. The PMA
process is far more complicated and requires a long and expensive process of
scientific and regulatory review to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a
device. For a PMA application, the FDA has determined that requirements of a
510K application, including general (good manufacturing practices) and special
controls (requiring a doctor’s prescription) are not enough. The process is
arduous, and the rules are stringent. A PMA must provide a greater burden of proof
of the scientific merit of the device. If a device can’t meet the expectations
of the FDA, then it is considered adulterated and cannot be marketed. This
doesn’t indicate there is a real safety or efficacy risk - it can simply mean
the FDA doesn’t like it.
The FDA and CES Devices
Politics, not science,
dictated from the beginning that CES devices be classed as a Class III device
with special controls - meaning the device can only be sold with a doctor’s
prescription. Since CES devices were substantially equivalent to other devices
already on the market, only a 510k application was needed at that time instead
of the more rigorous PMA. Despite assurances of safety from the FDA’s own
review panels, the agency has maintained a bias towards the technology. For
thirty years, CES companies have been continually bullied by the FDA.
Harassment has ranged from delaying shipments, to mixing up paperwork, physical
harassment by officials and generally causing both a costly and emotional
experience for the companies involved.
Despite the harassment,
the companies have persisted to try and get CES reclassified to a Class II
device, which would allow it to be sold directly to the consumer, without a
doctor’s prescription. All of the safety and scientific data supports a Class
II designation. China
and European governments have given Class II status to CES devices. This means
these governments, after reviewing the same
documentation as the FDA, consider the technology so safe it can be sold
directly to the consumer. Over the years, however, the FDA has continually
rejected reclassification – that is until recently.
From 2009 to 2013, the FDA
required all manufacturers of CES devices to resubmit all known research and
safety data. The FDA indicated it would review the resulting 275 pages of
research and clinical data to finally determine if CES should be reclassified
to Class II, or even to Class I. In 2011, the FDA published a new (and
shocking) rule that all CES devices, including those already on the market, had
to go through the PMA application process. Despite the 30 years of evidence of
safety and efficacy, the more strict and expensive PMA process would be
necessary. The manufacturer of one CES device has pointed out how unusual this
is, as the purpose of the PMA process was to determine safety and efficacy of
only new devices. “It is strange, to say the least,” he said, “to put a device
through that process when it has already been legally marketed for 30 years.”
In essence, the FDA reset
the clock and rewrote history. Manufacturers have to start all over again at a
cost of many more millions. A safe and effective non-pharmaceutical therapy is
now classified in the same group as implantable devices such as pacemakers,
spinal cord stimulators and replacement heart valves.
The FDA justified the need
for a PMA application based on some of the following reasons: The FDA cites the
theoretical possibility that someone might have a seizure, even though in a
hundred years this has never been reported in any study. The FDA has also said
there was potential for blurred vision because of placement of electrodes over
eyes. This is irrelevant, as no manufacturer in North
America has ever had a protocol to place the electrodes over the
eyes. It was a practice in Russia
that was stopped several decades ago. The FDA further pointed out the
theoretical possibility of adverse events from electrically stimulating the
brain. Again, in all the studies, over all the years, this has never been an
issue.
Basically, the FDA has created potential side effects to make
CES appear unsafe while at the same time ignoring all CES research including those
studies that meet their own definition of "scientifically valid." In
contrast, the FDA applies a different rule to drugs that are given a “black
label warning” despite the fact that very real dangerous side effects occur and
which have maimed and killed people. In the end, the FDA panel concluded that
the excellent and proven benefits of CES did not outweigh the non-existent risks.
What does this mean for
consumers? It means most consumers won’t discover this safe and effective
technology as an alternative to drugs because it has to be prescribed by a
doctor. Doctors are not trained in non-pharmaceutical technologies, so most
physicians don’t even know it exists. It also means much higher prices to
consumers as companies must recoup the costs of continually going through
expensive, unnecessary, and burdensome bureaucracy. It means some good
companies are forced underground. It means new, innovative products are either
bullied from the marketplace or don’t even get to the market because of the
costs and harassment involved.
In Summary
Once again the FDA’s
actions speak to their bias against low cost, non-pharmaceutical and natural
treatments, and the lengths they are able to manipulate the process to treat
one group of therapies different than their pharmaceutical counterparts.