Established products to exit EU list of Black Triangle Products ?

As reported in Safety Observer N°148 of September 2018, the EMA has published the minutes of the 100th Management Board meeting, which took place on 06 and 07-Jun-2018.

The Board discussed a great variety of topics, including Brexit and lessons learnt after the first EMA Public Hearing. It also included a discussion on a report exploring the experience made with the list of products subject to additional monitoring, also known as the list of Black Triangle Products.

As described in GVP Module X, all medicines on the list must be identified with an inverted Black Triangle, which is displayed in their package leaflet and in the SmPC. This system was derived from the Black Triangle scheme already in place in the UK to highlight the medicines under close scrutiny by the authorities, which was expanded throughout Europe with the implementation of the 2010 Pharmacovigilance Legislation. The EMA published the list for the first time in April 2013 and it is reviewed every month by the PRAC.

There are a few reasons that can make a medicine enter the list, knowing that it should remain on the list for 5 years unless the PRAC decides otherwise:

• It contains a new active substance or a new biological/biosimilar product

• It has been given a conditional approval, or approved under exceptional circumstances or with specific obligations on the recording of suspected ADRs

• The company that markets the medicine is required to conduct a post-authorisation safety study (PASS)

One of the main conclusions of the report discussed by the Board is that the latter criterion has led to the inclusion of a large number of established products in the list (see item B.9 in the minutes). This is reportedly of limited value and the PRAC supports that this category of products should be removed from the scope of additional monitoring.

Based on the current list (i.e. Revision 58 dated 25-Jul-2018), there are 57 out of 346 active substances that are on the list only because of a required PASS. They are not all established products but those are easy to spot because the number of products and MAHs concerned is so large that they need to be presented in Annexes separate to the list. For example, the list of Domperidone-containing medicinal products (Annex X) is 6 pages long. Even though each formulation / MAH / Country is presented, it still concerns a large number of products indeed.

Based on the report and the opinion of the PRAC Committee, this may change in the future and these products would no longer qualify for the Black Triangle scheme in the EU. Following endorsement by the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA), the report will be sent to the European Commission for further consideration and decision by the European Parliament and Council.

→       Link to EMA Management Board Meeting Page

→       Direct link to EMA Management Board 100th Meeting Minutes

→       Link to EMA Page: Medicines under additional monitoring

→       Link to EMA Page: List of medicines under additional monitoring

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PV Focus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.

EMA Guidance on ICSR data from EudraVigilance

Everybody should know by now but in case you missed it, the EMA published much-awaited guidance over the summer to clarify the obligations of MAHs to record information on ICSRs they can access in EudraVigilance.

Since the implementation of the New EudraVigilance on 22-Nov-2017, MAHs are given access to all ICSRs contained in the EudraVigilance database. The MAHs are now responsible to access EudraVigilance to retrieve all ICSRs related to their medicines and first received by National Authorities.

There was however no guidance regarding the obligations of MAHs in relation to ICSRs submitted to EudraVigilance by other MAHs or regarding those ICSRs available in EudraVigilance prior to 22-Nov-2017. This has caused a lot of pain and confusion, especially for MAHs of generic products who could not exclude ownership of the suspected products in many ICSRs they became aware of.

This gap has now been closed by the EMA and the Note for Clarification published on 23-Jul-2018 brings much needed guidance:

• Regarding the ICSRs available in EudraVigilance prior to 22-Nov-2017, the Note clarifies that MAHs have no obligation to screen EudraVigilance for cases that they do not already have in their own database. In the same way, the MAH have no obligation to record in their database those ICSRs they become aware through activities related to Signal Management in EudraVigilance.

• Regarding the ICSRs submitted by other MAHs to EudraVigilance, the Note clarifies that MAHs have no obligation to record these in their own database.

Although some will argue this took a long time and could have been better anticipated, this should come as a relief for the industry. It also sets a clear standard for Regulatory Inspections.

→ Link to EMA Page: Access to EudraVigilance data

→ Direct link to Note for Clarification

Thierry Hamard is a Pharmacist with more than 15 years of Global Pharmacovigilance Auditing experience and over 200 PV Audits performed since his company PVFocus was established in 2004.

Thierry is also Chief Editor of Safety Observer, a provider of Regulatory Intelligence services for Pharmacovigilance since 2005.