Insights & news

European Commission Seeks Increased Awareness of Additional Monitoring System of Medicines

  • 21/11/2019
  • Articles

The European Commission released on 15 November 2019 a report examining the effectiveness of amendments made in 2010 and 2012 to the pharmacovigilance rules governing medicines under additional monitoring (the Report, see, attached). These medicines are identified by the inclusion of a black inverted triangleand an explanatory note in the product information. The additional monitoring system applies to medicinal products for which enhanced post-authorisation data collection is needed to ensure that any new safety hazards are identified as promptly as possible and that appropriate action can be initiated immediately.

The 2013 Guidelines on additional monitoring drafted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (the Guidelines, see, attached) explain the general principles for assigning additional monitoring status to medicines. The additional monitoring status applies (i) for five years for products included solely on the basis of being a new biological medicine or containing a new active substance; or (ii) until the completion of all the conditions for inclusion in the additional monitoring list for other products. When medicines are no longer subject to additional monitoring, the inverted triangle is removed from the product information.

On the basis of a public survey conducted by EMA with a view to understanding awareness of reporting adverse reactions to medicines, including medicines under additional monitoring, EMA concluded that, as regards the entire set of respondents, made up of healthcare professionals, patients and other members of the public, only 36% showed an acceptable understanding.

EMA also inquired whether the inclusion of a medicine in the additional monitoring list had an effect on the reporting of adverse reactions. EMA discovered variations in that some products showed increases while others did not, and some products even showed a decrease. However, EMA noted that the study had several limitations (including a restricted data set and limited length of the observation period) and that reporting may also have increased due to factors other than inclusion in the additional monitoring list.

Overall, the Report concludes that more time and more communication activities are required to raise awareness of the additional monitoring system and of the reasons for inclusion of a medicine in the list. The Report acknowledges the inconclusive effect of inclusion of a product in the additional monitoring list and recommends that EU Member States and EMA should continue promoting the importance of reporting and sharing their experience to develop best practices.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 06/04/2020
    • Articles

    Dutch Competition Authority Accepts Roche Commitments Regarding Supply of Testing Materials for SARS-CoV-2 Test

    Autoriteit Consument en Markt, the Dutch competition authority (“ACM”), published on 3 April 2020 a press release expressing satisfaction with commitments made by Roche Diagnostics (“Roche”) regarding the supply of testing materials for the SARS-CoV-2 test (see, attachments). Roche, which ACM says has a “key position” for testing equipment and materials in The Netherlands, had been accused of withholding such materials, including lysis buffer solution, a reagent used to break open cells. On 26 March 2020, the Dutch second Parliamentary Chamber even voted a resolution which observed a shortage of that solution, attributed blame for the alleged shortage to Roche, and called on the government to compel Roche to share the recipe, if necessary by relying on a compulsory patent licence. Roche rejected the allegations and pointed out that it had not even claimed patent protection for the recipe. According to Roche, which pointed out that it developed the first SARS-CoV-2 test in record time, the issue had arisen because Roche could not guarantee the safety and reliability of test results if the reagents were produced in facilities not under its control. For its part, ACM made it clear that Roche had exhibited a “constructive attitude” by sharing the recipe for lysis buffer solution and helping in expanding production. This is why ACM did not consider further action necessary. In passing, ACM pointed out that it had worked closely with the European Commission as many Member States are grappling with similar problems.

    Read more
    • 31/03/2020
    • Articles

    Pharmaceuticals Remain Focus for Belgian Competition Authority in 2020

    The Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) has just published its annual policy note which sets out its enforcement priorities for the year (see, attachments). The pharmaceutical sector is once more one of the BCA’s principal targets for action and, as the BCA indicates, this is not different from an approach followed by other competition authorities around Europe. The BCA is known to be pursuing cases in the sector actively (see e.g., Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News alert of 8 October 2019). It also adopted several infringement decisions against a pharmacists’ association in 2019 (see e.g., Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News alerts of 5 June 2019, 24 June 2019 and 17 October 2019). Additionally, its chief prosecutor in competition matters had occasion to explain the BCA’s handling of the sector during a hearing of the federal Chamber of Representatives in October 2019 ( Apart from the pharmaceutical sector and in line with previous years, the BCA will target distribution, logistics, service providers and telecommunications and will continue to monitor procurement matters. Finally, it will also tackle the digital economy.

    Read more
    • 30/03/2020
    • Articles

    European Commission Offers Guidance on Foreign Direct Investment and Protection of Europe’s Healthcare Capacities

    On 25 March 2020, the European Commission (the Commission) published guidance to the Member States of the EU concerning the limitation of foreign direct investment (“FDI”) and free movement of capital from third countries in order to protect Europe’s strategic assets, especially its healthcare capacities (see, attachment). The Commission considers that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there could be “an increased risk of attempts from non-EU investors to acquire healthcare capacities (for example for the production of medical or protective equipment) or related industries such as research establishments (for instance developing vaccines) via foreign direct investment”. According to the Commission, if left unchecked, FDI could hamper the EU’s capacity to cover the health needs of its citizens. Since the responsibility for screening FDI lies with EU Member States, the Commission calls upon them to (i) make full use of their screening mechanisms “to take fully into account the risks to critical health infrastructures, supply of critical inputs, and other critical sectors”; and (ii) to set up a screening mechanism if they do not yet have one “and in the meantime to use all other available options”. EU Member States should thus avert FDI liable to “create a risk to security or public order in the EU, including a risk to critical health infrastructures and supply of critical inputs”. The Commission also refers to Regulation (EU) 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of FDI into the Union (FDI Screening Regulation), which will apply as of 11 October 2020. The FDI Screening Regulation lists critical health infrastructure among the factors which may be taken into consideration in determining whether FDI is likely to affect security or public order. The FDI Screening Regulation also sets up a cooperation mechanism between the Commission and Member States in order to tackle FDI that creates risks in several Member States. Finally, the Commission provides guidance on the possible justifications for restricting capital movements.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *