Post-Marketing Surveillance and Vigilance for Medical Devices
The extent to which the medical device manufacturers are responsible for actively monitoring the performance of their products after they have successfully passed the rigorous pre-market approval process has always been a matter of diverse opinion. Within Europe, the law is unhelpfully vague on this point. While there are some comparatively clear obligations for reporting incidents to the authorities (known as the ‘vigilance system’), little detail is given on how diligently the manufacturer should try to find out about such incidents.
In the early stages of the European Community Directives covering medical devices, there was much emphasis upon formulating guidance to help interpret the vigilance reporting requirements. It is, however, only recently that attention has turned to attempting to clarify what is expected from post-marketing surveillance (PMS) in its broader sense.
This article discuses both the vigilance and PMS processes and outlines the currently available European, and particularly UK, guidance documents which are aimed at promoting a more level playing field across industry where these activities are concerned. In particular, it explains the principle differences between vigilance and post-marketing surveillance: the former being the reporting of adverse incidents by manufacturers to the regulatory authorities and their subsequent sharing of key incident data between each other; the latter being the process by which information on overall devise performance is captured, analysed and acted upon. Nevertheless, it is still a struggle to gain widespread appreciation that these two activities are not in fact one and the same.
KeywordsGuidance Document Device User Vigilance System Adverse Incident European Community Directive
- 1.Council Directive: 90/285/EEC concerning Active Implantable Medical Devices, OJ L189; 1990 Jun 10Google Scholar
- 2.Council Directive: 93/42/EEC concerning Medical Devices, OJ L169; Volume 36; 1993 Jul 12Google Scholar
- 3.Council Directive: 98/79/EC concerning In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices OJ L331/1; 1998 Oct 27Google Scholar
- 4.The European Commission guidelines on a medical devices vigilance system, (MEDDEV 2.12/1). 3 rev. 1998 MarGoogle Scholar
- 5.Guidance on the medical devices vigilance system for CE marked joint replacement implants. London: Medical Devices Agency; 1998 Sep. MDA PublicationGoogle Scholar
- 6.Guidance on the medical devices vigilance system for CE marked artificial heart valves. Version 1. London: Medical Devices Agency; 1998 Oct. MDA PublicationGoogle Scholar
- 7.Guidance on the medical devices vigilance system for CE marked breast implants. Version 1. London:Medical Devices Agency; 1999 Aug. MDA PublicationGoogle Scholar
- 8.Guidance on the medical devices vigilance system for CE marked coronary stents. Version 1. London:Medical Devices Agency; 2001 Jan. MDA PublicationGoogle Scholar
- 9.Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) post market/production. NB-MED/2.12/Rec 1 Rev 11: (Accepted 2000 Feb 29)Google Scholar
- 10.BS EN 46001: 1994 application of EN 29001 (BS 5750: part 1) to the manufacture of medical devices.Google Scholar
- 11.BS EN 9004-1: 1994 quality management and quality system elements part 1 guidelines.Google Scholar
- 12.BS EN 50103: 1996 guidance on the application of EN 29001 and EN46001 and of EN 29002 and EN 46002 for the active (including active implantable) medical device industry.Google Scholar
- 13.Post-market surveillance of CE marked joint replacement implants including guidance to manufacturers on post-market clinical studies. London:Medical Devices Agency; 2000 Sep. MDA PublicationGoogle Scholar