European Pharmacovigilance Legislation – Member State Implementation
EUROPEAN PHARMACOVIGILANCE
LEGISLATION – MEMBER STATE IMPLEMENTATION
European
Directives are not directly binding on Member States, but must be implemented
nationally through domestic legislation. European Regulations have a direct
effect on Member States, and no further procedural action is required for them
to bind Member States.
The European pharmacovigilance requirements have been implemented in the United Kingdom by the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994, as amended (the ‘1994 Regu-lations’) (see Appendix 6 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk). Schedule 3 of the 1994 Regulations creates certain criminal offences for non-compliance with European pharmacovigilance requirements. In addition, the Medicines for Human Use (clinical trials) Regulations 2004 (the ‘2004 Regulations’) (see Appendix 7 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk), which implemented Direc-tive 2001/20 relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials, imposes specific pharmacovigilance obligations on clinical trial investigators and sponsors in respect of reporting suspected unexpected serious adverse reac-tions arising in clinical trials. Regulation 49 of the 2004 Regulations makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with those obligations.
The
UK competent authority responsible for medicinal product pharmacovigilance is
the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’), an executive
agency of the Department of Health.
The
MHRA’s post-licensing division, together with the Commission on Human Medicines
(‘CHM’),1 runs the ‘Yellow Card’ scheme for the reporting of all
suspected adverse drug reactions (the name of the scheme derives from the
colour of the stan-dardised reporting forms, see Appendix 8 at http://
www.opsi.gov.uk). Voluntary reports are accepted by the MHRA/CHM from both
health care profession-als and members of the public.2 In addition,
reports are received from marketing authorisation holders in accordance with
their legal obligations.
For
established products, the MHRA requests that health care professionals report
only serious suspected adverse reactions. For newer products, for which
relatively limited safety information will be avail-able, the MHRA/CHM
encourages the reporting of all suspected adverse reactions. New products are
identified with an inverted black triangle symbol ‘ ’ in the relevant
professional publications and adver-tising material. In addition, the MHRA/CHM
has a particular interest in adverse reactions in children and the elderly –
delayed drug effects, congenital abnor-malities and herbal remedies.
In
accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EEC (as
imple-mented in the United Kingdom by the Data Protec-tion Act 1998, as
amended, see Appendix 9 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk) and with common law confi-dentiality
requirements, personal details, such as the name and date of birth of a
patient, are no longer requested for Yellow Cards completed by health care
professionals. Instead, reporters include the patient’s age, sex and a
reference number to enable identifi-cation of the particular report in any
further corre-spondence. For Yellow Cards submitted by patients, personal
details are requested so that the MHRA can get in contact with the person if
more information is needed.
All
reports are entered into the MHRA’s Adverse Drug Reactions On-Line Information
Tracking (ADROIT) database. The MHRA evaluates the reports to assess the causal
relationship between the drugs and reported reactions, and to identify possible
risk factors contributing to the occurrence of the reactions. Marketing
authorisation holders may subscribe to the MHRA’s ADROIT Electronically
Generated Informa-tion Service (AEGIS), enabling electronic exchange of
pharmacovigilance data.
On
rare occasions, if the MHRA determines that the risks of a product outweigh its
benefits, it may be necessary to withdraw the product from the market.
Alternatively, and as is more usual, the MHRA may require that warnings be
included in the product infor-mation or on the package label or that the
indications for the use of the medicine be restricted.
The
MHRA communicates with health care profes-sionals and patients to warn about
adverse effects and to provide information. It sends doctors and phar-macists Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance, a
bulletin providing alerts to problems identified with particular medicines. For
urgent medicinal product hazard warnings, ‘Dear Health care Professional’
letters are sent to all doctors and pharmacists by post or electronic cascade.
Fact sheets are also produced for both health care professionals and patients,
and safety alerts are published on the MHRA’s website.
The
European pharmacovigilance requirements have been implemented in Italy by
Legislative Decree n. 178 of 29 May 1991 and Legislative Decree n. 44 of 18
February 1997 which has been partially amended by legislative Decree n. 95 of 8
April 2003.
The
Italian authority responsible for pharmacovigi-lance is the Department for the
Evaluation of Medici-nal Products and Pharmacovigilance of the Agenzia Italiana
del Farmaco (AIFA) (the ‘Italian Agency of Pharmaceuticals’).
The
AIFA liaises with regional health authori-ties, with the national
pharmacovigilance authori-ties of other Member States and with international
institutions, such as the WHO. In accordance with European requirements, all
pharmaceutical companies must appoint a ‘qualified person’ responsible for
phar-macovigilance, on a continuous and permanent basis. Pharmaceutical
companies must:
• maintain detailed records of all suspected adverse reactions that occurred in Italy, in the European Community or in any other third country;
• record and notify to the competent health authority and/or to the AIFA all suspected serious reactions that occurred in Italy and that were brought to their attention by health care professionals imme-diately and in any case within 15 days following the receipt of the information;
• ensure that all serious and unexpected adverse reactions that occurred in a third country and were brought to their attention by a health care profes-sional are reported to the AIFA immediately and in any case not later than 15 days following receipt of relevant information;
• report to the AIFA any suspected serious adverse reaction that occurred in the European Commu-nity, when the medical products were authorised according to the mutual recognition procedure and for which Italy acts as the Reference State.
Doctors and health care professionals shall submit all suspected adverse reactions of which they are informed immediately to the person responsible for pharmacovigilance in the health institution to which they belong, who in turn shall transmit electronically, immediately and in any case not later than 7 days from receipt of the information, the above information to both the holder of the marketing authorisation and to the AIFA. Health care professionals must notify any and all suspected adverse reactions (seri-ous, not serious, expected and unexpected) to vaccines and medicines that are under intensive control and included in lists published periodically by the AIFA.
Public
health institutions and scientific institutions shall appoint a person
responsible for pharmacovigi-lance, who must take care of the connection to and
registration with the national electronic system for the management of
pharmacovigilance issues. Private clinics satisfy their pharmacovigilance
obligations through the individual responsible for pharmacovigi-lance at the
public institution.
Adverse
event reports are submitted online. Regis-tration on the national electronic
system takes place through a very simple procedure laid down by the AIFA
itself. The reporting form is in Appendix 10 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk).
The
Decree n. 95/2005 abolishes the criminal sanc-tions that were provided for
violations of the obliga-tion to notify medicinal adverse reactions by doctors,
pharmacists and health care professionals and intro-duces higher administrative
sanctions against phar-maceutical companies that do not comply with the law
relating to the registration and notification of serious and adverse reactions.
Moreover, the decree also provides for disciplinary sanctions against health
care professionals at public health institutions.
In
case of violation of the pharmacovigilance obli-gations set out above, the
following sanctions may be applied:
·
a fine from E30
000 to E18 000 may be levied
against the holder of the marketing authorisation. This amount is increased by
an amount between 0.1% and 1% of the revenue generated by the sale of the
product to which the information relates;
·
a fine from E20
000 to E120 000 levied
against the person responsible for pharmacovigilance at the holder of the
marketing authorisation; and the submission of the person responsible for
phar-macovigilance at the public institutions to disci-plinary proceedings,
according to law.
The
European pharmacovigilance requirements have been implemented into French law
by a Decree n. 95–278 of 13 March 1995. This decree was later amended by the
Decrees n. 99–144 of 4 March 1999 and n. 2004–99 of 29 January 2004. The
relevant provisions regarding pharmacovigilance are now codi-fied in Articles
R.5121-150 et seq. of the French
Public Health Code. In addition, on 28 April 2005, the Health Ministry
published guidelines for good appli-cation of pharmacovigilance rules (‘Bonnes Pratiques de Pharmacovigilance’).
The
competent authorities responsible for pharmacovigilance are the French Agency
for the Sanitary Safety of Health Products (‘AFSS-APS’), the National
Pharmacovigilance Commission (‘Commission
Nationale de Pharmacovigilance’), the Technical Committee (‘Comité Technique’) and, at a regional
scale, the regional pharmacovigilance centres (there are 31 centres).
The
French Public Health Code provides for report-ing obligations on health care
professionals. In particular, it requires medical doctors, dental surgeons and
midwives to report any serious or unexpected adverse reactions in relation to a
medicinal product, whether or not they have actually prescribed the product.
Pharmacists are also obliged to report seri-ous or unexpected adverse reactions
relating to the products they have dispensed. Reports are filed in a prescribed
form at the nearest regional centre, which forwards the data to the AFSSAPS
(see Appendix 11 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk). Voluntary reporting of adverse reactions
which are not serious or unexpected may also be filed at the nearest regional
centre. The Technical Committee is responsible for co-ordinating and evaluating
the data provided by regional centres. Regional centres are obliged to forward
information relating to serious adverse reactions to the AFSSAPS directly.
Reporting
obligations are also imposed on compa-nies pursuant to the provisions of
Article R.5121-178 of the French Public Health Code. In particular,
pharmaceutical companies are required to appoint a qualified person responsible
for pharmacovigilance (‘responsable de
pharmacovigilance’), whose func-tion is to report every serious adverse
reaction to the AFSSAPS.
Pursuant
to the provisions of Article R.5121-171 of the French Public Health Code, any
company which markets a medicinal product is required to record and report all
suspected serious adverse reactions which are brought to its attention by a
health care profes-sional or of which it can reasonably be expected to have
knowledge. It must also report any serious and unexpected adverse reaction
occurring in the territory of a third country which is brought to its
attention.
The
EU pharmacovigilance requirements have been implemented in the German Drug Act (Arzneimit-telgesetz, AMG). All
individuals or businesses involved in
the marketing of medicinal products, including manufacturers, wholesalers,
physicians and pharmacists, are bound by an ongoing pharmacovigi-lance duty to
ensure that no unsafe drugs enter the market (s. 5(1) AMG).
According
to the legal definition, a drug is to be considered ‘unsafe’ if the current
state of scien-tific knowledge suggests and gives rise to reasonable concerns
that the adverse side effects of the properly applied drug outweigh its
benefits (s. 5(2) AMG). This ban on the marketing of (purportedly) unsafe drugs
applies irrespective of whether a marketing authorisa-tion for the product
concerned has been granted but not yet revoked. Possible legal sanctions for
viola-tions of this duty can be severe, with fines and terms of imprisonment of
up to 3 years or 1 year in the case of simple negligence. In particularly
severe cases, for example, if the conduct has endangered the health of a vast
number of individuals this may lead to up to 10 years of imprisonment (s. 95
AMG).
The
holder of a German national marketing authori-sation must report any serious
adverse reactions within 15 days of learning of the effects to the competent
German authority. This is generally the Federal Insti-tute for Medicinal
Products and Medical Devices, ‘Bundesinstitut
für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte’ (BfArM) unless either the Federal
Agency for Sera and Vaccines, ‘Paul
Ehrlich Institut’ (PEI), or the Federal Agency for Health Protection of
Consumers and Veterinary Medicine is competent in the area of that product (s.
77 AMG).
The
applicant must also make all related documen-tation available together with a
scientific evaluation of the adverse reactions (s. 29(1) AMG). All adverse
reactions, other than serious ones, must be recorded and reported at regular
intervals. The reporting forms are in Appendix 12 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk).
Both
BfArM and the district governments of the German states are vested with
far-reaching powers to protect public health against hazards resulting from medicinal
products by imposing certain restrictions on a medicinal product and/or
withdrawing the pro-duct from the market. BfArM may restrict, suspend or revoke
the marketing authorisation of the drug in question (s. 69 AMG), whereas the
state authorities have competence for all other issues. As always in German
public law, each acting authority must estab-lish that the measure taken is
appropriate and reason-able under the particular circumstances of the case.
In
cases where practical experience or scientific research leads to a new
risk-benefit assessment of medicinal products on the market, BfArM may order a
so-called Phased Plan Procedure (PPP, Stufenplan-verfahren;
ss 62 and 63 AMG). The goal of the PPP is
to arrive at an amicable solution for addressing and responding to health risks
which come to light after the medicinal product concerned has been approved for
circulation on the market.
If
the available data and information support reason-able concerns that a certain
drug is creating a health hazard, the competent authority must initiate the by
calling meetings where all parties concerned (including the manufacturers) are
represented and can put forward their arguments. If no consensus can be reached
or if the majority recommendations are not voluntarily complied with, the
authority may revert to its general supervisory powers and impose the
above-mentioned measures, including informing the public of health hazards
caused by certain medicinal products.
Each pharmaceutical company is legally obliged to appoint a PPP Officer (‘Stufenplanbeauftragter’, s. 63a AMG), whose duty is to comply with the reporting requirements of the AMG and to co-ordinate and implement pharmacovigilance activities within the company.
Related Topics
TH 2019 - 2024 pharmacy180.com; Developed by Therithal info.