Vol. 11 No. 1 (2019): Archives of Public Health
Public Health

Comparative analysis of materiovigilance systems of Macedonia, USА, EU, Japan and China and their role in public health

Vlatko Kokolanski
Public health doctoral studies, Medical Faculty, University Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
Suzana Trajkovikj -Jolevska
Faculty of Pharmacy, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
Rozalinda Isjanovska
Institute of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
Kiro Ivanovski
Faculty of Dentistry, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia
Katarina Dirjanska
Faculty of Dentistry, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia

Published 2019-04-06

Keywords

  • public health,
  • materiovigilance,
  • medical devices,
  • safety,
  • best practices

How to Cite

1.
Kokolanski V, Trajkovikj -Jolevska S, Isjanovska R, Ivanovski K, Dirjanska K. Comparative analysis of materiovigilance systems of Macedonia, USА, EU, Japan and China and their role in public health. Arch Pub Health [Internet]. 2019 Apr. 6 [cited 2022 Oct. 4];11(1):20-3. Available from: https://www.id-press.eu/aph/article/view/2843

Abstract

Materiovigilance is a system applied for the purpose of detecting, gathering, monitoring, assessing and responding to new data on safety of medicinal products and related to the use of medical device related to possible incidents during use. The aim of this paper was to show the characteristics of the system of materiovigilance in the Republic of Macedonia compared to four other jurisdictions (US, EU, Japan and China), the recognition of the advantages and disadvantages of the systems and their impact on public health. Material and methods: For the realization of the aim of the study, we conducted an analysis of data published on the web pages of regulatory authorities related to the existing legal framework and review of the literature available on the network for scientists and researchers ResearchGate. General dialectical method as well as legal methods (dogmatic and normative method) were used in this study in order to determine the content, the meaning and the importance of the legal norms which regulate the system of materiovigilance. Results: The five systems of materiovigilance have several features that include monitoring of adverse events caused by medical device that have been granted a marketing authorization. Globally, these systems provide different, shared responsibility of all stakeholders. Thus, the scope of responsibilities of producers is significantly higher in Japan and China, opposed to the EU and Macedonia, where the responsibility is passed on to distributors, health professionals and other for-profit entities. United States is in the middle between these two extreme systems of materiovigilance, where the FDA has the responsibility to protect the public health forecasting responsibilities to the industry. Conclusion: There are significant variations in the regulation system of materiovigilance in the Republic of Macedonia and the analyzed legal systems. To date, there is no empirical evidence that one system is better than another, but it is indisputable that each system has its advantages and disadvantages regarding the protection of public health. Within the analyzed systems of materiovigilance three best practices can be seen that contribute to the improvement of public health: transparency, repeating the examination of medical device and central versus local control. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Radisic J. Medicinsko pravo: drugo preragjeno i dopunjeno izdanje. Beograd: Nomos; 2008.
  2. Krsteva Jakimovska К, Glavas-Dodov М, Tonic-Ribarska Ј, Trajkovic-Jolevska S. Medical device risk management and its economic impact. Maced Pharm Bull. 2013; 59 (1-2): 49 – 60.
  3. Закон за лековите и медицинските средства. „Службен весник на Република Македонија“ бр. 106/2007; 88/2010; 36/2011; 53/2011; 136/2011; 11/2012; 147/2013; 164/2013; 27/2014; 43/2014; 88/2015; 154/2015; 228/2015. 7/2016 и 53/2016).
  4. Hauser RG, Kallinen LM, Almquist AK, Gornick CC, Katsiyiannis WT. Early failure of a small-diameter high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. Heart Rhythm 2007;4 (7):892–896.
  5. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard P, Blom A. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: Analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 380 (9855): 1759–1766.
  6. Horton R. A Serious regulatory failure, with urgent implications. Lancet. 2012: 379.
  7. Gallagher J. Pip Breast Implants: European Commission says reform needed. BBC News. 2012 Jan 14; Достапно: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-1654332. Посетено на: 23.12.2016.
  8. O’Dowd A. UK launches inquiry into safety of pip breast implants. BMJ 2012; 344:e11
  9. Gupta SK. Medical device regulations: a current perspective. J Young Pharm 2016; 8(1): 6-11.
  10. Законот за лековите, помошните лековити средства и медицинските средства. "Службен весник на Република Македонија" број 21/1998.
  11. Правилникот за начинот на известување на несаканите ефекти за време на користењето на медицинското помагало, видовите на реакциите што ги предизвикуваат, постапувањето на здравствените работници и добавувачите, како и начинот на организирање на системот за следење на несаканите ефекти и реакциите од медицинските помагала. „Службен весник на Република Македонија“ бр.79/2009.
  12. Правилник за престанување на важењето на Правилникот за начинот на известување на несаканите ефекти за време на користењето на медицинското помагало, видовите на реакциите штo ги предизвикуваат, постапувањето на здравствените работници и добавувачите, како и начинот на организирање на системот за следење на несаканите ефекти и реакциите од медицинските помагала. „Службен весник на Република Македонија“ бр. 116/2016.
  13. Правилникот за начинот за известување на несаканите ефекти за време на користењето на медицинското средство, видовите на реакциите што ги предизвикуваат, постапувањето на здравствените работници и добавувачите, како и начинот на организирање на системот за следење на несаканите ефекти и реакциите од медицинските средства. „Службен весник на Република Македонија“ бр. 100/2016.
  14. Закон за здравствената заштита. „Службен весник на Република Македонија“ бр. 43/2012, 145/2012, 87/2013, 164/2013, 39/2014, 43/2014, 132/2014, 188/2014, 10/2015, 61/2015, 154/2015, 192/2015, 17/2016 и 37/2016.
  15. Правилникот за видовите на индикаторите на квалитет за здравствената заштита. „Службен весник на Република Македонија“ бр. 127/2012.
  16. http://malmed.gov.mk/index.php/2015-07-11-10-31-18; Агенција за лекови и медицински средства (Webpage). Посетено на: 14.03.2017.
  17. Norman FE (ed.). The medical device industry: science, technology, and regulation in a competitive environment. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1990.
  18. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/; Food and Drug Administration (Webpage).Посетено на: 14.03.2017.
  19. Gupta et al. Medical device vigilance systems: India, US, UK, and Australia. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 2010:3 67–79.
  20. Drongelen van A, Hessels J, Geertsma R. Comparison of market authorization systems of medical devices in USA and Europe: RIVM Letter report 2015-0001. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2015.
  21. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Device Reporting. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm;). Посетено на: 22.12.2016.
  22. https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/; Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (Webpage).Посетено на: 14.03.2017.
  23. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/health-medical/pharmaceuticals/; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Webpage). Посетено на: 14.03.2017.
  24. Kramer DB, Tan YT, Sato C, Kesselheim AS. Postmarket Surveillance of Medical Devices: A Comparison of Strategies in the US, EU, Japan, and China. PLoS Med 2013; 10(9): e1001519.
  25. China Food and Drug Administration, PR China. Regulations for the Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices. Available at http://eng.sfda.gov.cn/WS03/CL0767/61641.html. Посетено на:14.03.2017.
  26. Council Directive of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices (90/385/EEC), amended by: Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993; Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993; Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003; Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 and corrected by: Corrigendum, OJ L 7, 1.11.1994, p. 20 (90/385/EC).
  27. Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, amended by: Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998; Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000; Directive 2001/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 December 2001; Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003; Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007.
  28. Directive 98/79/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, amended by: Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003; Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009; Commission Directive 2011/100/EU of 20 December 2011. and corrected by: Corrigendum, OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 75 (98/79/EC); Corrigendum, OJ L 6, 10.1.2002, p. 70 (98/79/EC).
  29. European Commission, DG Health and Consumer Directorate B, Unit B2 “Cosmetics and medical devices”. Medical Devices: Guidance document, Classification of medical devices: MEDDEV 2. 4/1 Rev. 9 June 2010. Достапно:http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/medical-devices/files/meddev/2_4_1_rev_9_classification_en.pdf Посетено на: 14.03.2017.
  30. Wartman GJ. Life after Riegel: a fresh look at medical device preemption one year after Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. Food Drug Law J 2009; 64: 291–311.