Comparison GHTF/SG5/N5:2012 vs. MEDDEV 2.7/3:2010

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Introduction to Safety Management April Objective The objective of this presentation is to highlight some of the basic elements of Safety Management.
Advertisements

1 Welcome Safety Regulatory Function Handbook April 2006.
On the relationship between ISO/DTS29321 and ISO14971 & Japans Comments for new draft & amended clause 8 final of ISO/DTS /5/2008 JAHIS.
ISO/TS WHO Informal Consultation on Nomenclatures for Medical Devices March 23-24, 2011 Leighton Hansel Convener ISO/TC210 WG3 Symbols and Nomenclature.
Presentation of the proposed Annex 19 – Safety Management
Medical Device Software Development
Safety Reporting IN Clinical Trials
Protocol Development.
Medical Devices Regulation in the European Union Albuquerque - 10 April 2012 Emmanuel Grimaud Perfea Innovation Lyon, France – Albuquerque, NM
Center for Clinical Research - Clinical Trials Center (CTC) Clinical Research and Clinical Trials in Switzerland Jürg Lustenberger, PhD Dipl. Pharm. Med.
Adverse Event Reporting. Reporting Adverse Events Adverse Events (AEs) are “... any untoward medical occurrence in a subject that was not previously identified.
Reporting Unanticipated Problems Involving Risk to Subjects or Others and Adverse Events WFUHS Policy/Procedure Effective Date 6/1/07 Wendy Murray Monitoring.
© 2005 Notification and Reporting on Food Incidents: Irish Approach Food & Drugs Authority Bangkok Thailand Dorothy Guina-Dornan.
Elements of a clinical trial research protocol
© Safeguarding public health Implementing Medical Device Regulation and Maintaining Patient Safety Name Nicola Lennard Date October 2011.
Update: 21 CFR PART 312 FDA Safety Reporting Requirements for INDs
Capturing and Reporting Adverse Events in Clinical Research
Combining Product Risk Management & Design Controls
The ICH E5 Question and Answer Document Status and Content Robert T. O’Neill, Ph.D. Director, Office of Biostatistics, CDER, FDA Presented at the 4th Kitasato-Harvard.
Columbia University IRB IRB 101 September 21, 2005 George Gasparis, Executive Director, CU IRB Asst. V.P. and Sr. Asst. Dean for Research Ethics.
FDA Recalls Risk Communication Advisory Committee David K. Elder Director, Office of Enforcement.
Adverse Events, Unanticipated Problems, Protocol Deviations & other Safety Information Which Form 4 to Use?
Pharma.be The Initiative to Promote Clinical Trials in Belgium Key Performance Indicators: Impact on Clinical Research of European Legislation Square –
Foreigner as a healthcare professional in the territory of Slovak Republic in the context of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council.
SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING Elizabeth Dayag IRB Administrator Naval Medical Center Portsmouth.
Project co-financed by European Union Project co- financed by Asean European Committee for Standardization Implementing Agency 1 Module 13 GMP Workshop.
Adverse Events and Unanticipated Problems Presented by: Karen Jeans, PhD, CCRN, CIP COACH Program Analyst.
Industry Perspective on Challenges for Product Developers - Drugs Christine Allison, M.S., RAC Associate Regulatory Consultant, Global Regulatory Affairs.
Reporting Unanticipated Problems and Adverse Events: A Change in Policy Mary A. Banks RN, BS, BSN Director, BUMC IRB Wednesday, November 14, 2007.
Incident Reports and field Safety Corrective Action ( FSCA) Eng. Essam M. Al-Mohandis Executive Director of Surveillance and Biometrics.
Office of Research Oversight ORO Reporting Adverse Events in Research to ORO Paula Squire Waterman, MS, CIP Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research.
H. Lundbeck A/S21-Sep-151 Pharmacovigilance during clinical development SAE reporting, ASUR and PSUR IFF Seminar, 21. February 2007.
Investigational Drugs in the hospital. + What is Investigational Drug? Investigational or experimental drugs are new drugs that have not yet been approved.
New Rules for Clinical Investigations in Germany
Rules for Supporting Part 803 and Part 806 Decision Making Page 1 Establishing Rules for: Medical Device Reports (803) & Correction and Removal Reports.
FDA Regulatory and Compliance Symposium
Investigational Devices and Humanitarian Use Devices June 2007.
FDA job description  Regulates about 25% of all consumer purchases  Mission summary: protect and advance public health  Products: food, cosmetics, drugs,
Serious Adverse Event Reporting Start-up Meeting March 25, 2010 Kingston, ON.
Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) SAR/SUSAR Mette Krag Dept. of Intensive Care 4131 Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet,
WORKSHOP ON ACCREDITATION OF BODIES CERTIFYING MEDICAL DEVICES INT MARKET TOPIC 9 CH 8 ISO MEASUREMENT, ANALYSIS AND IMPROVEMENT INTERNAL AUDITS.
CLAUDIA PANAIT TAIEX Expert – European Commission Legal Adviser Ministry of Health, ROMANIA.
Complaint Handling Medical Device Reporting May 19, 2016 Rita Harden, Director Customer Relations & Regulatory Reporting.
Workshop on conformity assessment procedures and certification of medical devices INT MARKT Kyiv, November 2011 Conformity assessment of medical.
Riyadh, November 29/30, 2005 Dr. Ekkehard Stösslein GHTF SG2 requirements for Adverse Event (AE) reporting Dr. Ekkehard Stösslein Federal Institute for.
KEVIN BEDAL LISA CARLIN MATT CARROLL ERIN NICHOLS Product Safety & Failure Analysis.
1 SAE Centralized Report and Review Process April 2012.
Clusters working group COM/CAMD New Regulations
Medical Device Software Development
Safety of the Subject Cena Jones-Bitterman, MPP, CIP, CCRP
The Working Group on Medical Measurements The 23rd Forum Meeting
Clinicaltrials.gov Update
Assessing expectedness of an adverse event
Reportable Events & Other IRB Updates February 2017
Adverse Event Reporting: Trials and Tribulations
REGULATORY PROBLEMS IN CARING OUT PRE- AND POST- AUTHORISATION CLINICAL TRIALS Dr Penka Decheva GCP Inspector, BDA.
Remote Monitoring of Adverse Events
Pharmacovigilance in clinical trials
Safety of the Subject Cena Jones-Bitterman, MPP, CIP, CCRP
UK Legal Requirement for Notification of Serious Breaches of Good Clinical Practice or The Trial Protocol John Poland, PhD Senior Director, Regulatory.
Remote Monitoring of Adverse Events
Proposal for a Regulation on medical devices and Proposal for a Regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices Key Provisions and GIRP Assessment.
Combination products The paradigm shift
SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING
New European Rules governing medical devices vigilance and combination products Lincoln Tsang May 2008.
A Practical Introduction to the Clinical Evaluation Report
Evidence standards for device approval: Regulatory perspectives
2.1. Monitoring of products placed on the market To verify the products comply with applicable directives EC declaration of conformity and technical.
Adverse Event Reporting _____________________________
Serious Adverse Event Reconciliation
Presentation transcript:

Comparison GHTF/SG5/N5:2012 vs. MEDDEV 2.7/3:2010 CIE February 14th, 2013

MEDDEV 2.7/3:2010 GHTF/SGS/N5: 2012 Comments 1.General Provides interpretation of Annex 7 of Directive 90/385/EEC and Annex X of Directive 93/42/EEC as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC Note 4: provides clarification on application date Note 5: SAE reporting continues until completion of investigation even if CE mark is granted before Provides guidance of adverse event reporting during pre-market clinical investigations No application date given Dual reporting (SAE and Vigilance) not called out MEDDEV is more explicit on adverse event reporting when study grant CE marking before the end of the study 2. Scope: Pre market clinical investigations conducted with non CE marked devices or CE marked devices used outside the intended use covered by the CE marking 2. Scope: Pre-market clinical investigations undertaken by the manufacturer to obtain regulatory approval for CE marking or pre-market investigation that require authorization before initiation GHTF definition refers to pre initiation approval, while the MeddeV scope refers to the MDD / AIMD CE marking and related intended use Not specifically mentioned that Post-market studies are excluded. Reference to a separate MEDDEV (2.12/2:2012) document for PMCF studies follow up. When the investigational device used in a clinical study is approved in a particular jurisdiction the NCA of that country shall apply the post market reporting requirements per GHTF/SG2/N54 document GHTF is more explicit Certain countries however apply requirements of MEDDEV also for Post-market studies. 3. Definitions: From ISO/FDIS 14155 but not all are used (blinding/masking not in MEDDEV) 4. Definitions : as per ISO14155:2011 but not all are used (SADE not in GHTF) GHTF better aligned with ISO 14155:2011 but not all relevant ISO definitions are used in both MEDDEV and GHTF No term Serious Health Threat but indicated in Note 11 in section 7.1 “Reporting Timelines” refers to events with potential Public Health Hazard as reportable. However, Public Health Hazard is not defined. Serious Health Threat definition: any event type which results in imminent risk to the study population of death, serious injury or serious illness that requires prompt remedial action. Reportable within 48 hours following the determination that the Serious Health Threat exists. No definition of Serious Health Threat or Public Health Hazard in MEDDEV 2.7/3 or ISO 14155:2011 SAE definition: note 2 on device deficiencies that might have led to SAE (not according to ISO 14155) SAE definition: 1 note (aligned with ISO 14155)  GHTF better aligned with ISO 14155:2011

MEDDEV 2.7/3: 2010 GHTF/SGS/N5: 2012 Comments USADE and Sponsor definition aligned with ISO/FDIS 14155 USADE definition: 2nd note added to include unanticipated procedure-related SAEs Sponsor definition: 2nd note added on who can be the sponsor Some clarification notes added to definitions in GHTF. However, unanticipated procedure-related SAEs are not necessarily device related 4.Reportable events: same as GHTF 5. Reportable events: same as MEDDEV + note added referring to events representing a Serious Health Threat Reporting of new finding/updates in relation to already reported events is included Nothing about updates in relation to already reported events   If the manufacturer has a different opinion from the investigator for device and/or procedure relationship, the manufacturer´s opinion has to be documented (specified in the header of the excel tabular format) In the case where opinions on incidence or classification or relatedness of AE differ between sponsor and investigator both opinions have to be reported. Difficult to find the information in the MEDDEV (only in excel tabular format attached to the document) GHTF is better aligned with ISO 14155:2011: The sponsor is responsible for the classification of AEs and on going safety evaluation of the clinical investigation and shall Review the investigator’s assessment of all AEs and determine and document in writing their seriousness and relationship to the investigational device ; in case of disagreement between the sponsor and the principal investigator(s) the sponsor shall communicate both opinions to the concerned parties, as defined in c), d) and e) below” (meaning EC, CA etc…). Reportable events occurring in third countries have to be reported All reportable events must be reported to all NCA’s responsible for the jurisdiction where the clinical investigation is conducted, according to applicable requirements in each jurisdiction. Not clear in the GHTF whether events from third countries have to be reported to Europe 5. Report by whom : Sponsor of the Clinical Investigation Events must be reported by the Sponsor (in section 5) MEDDEV and GHTF are aligned 6. To whom to report All NCAs where investigation has been authorized to start in Member State, at the same time using summary tabulation All NCAs where investigation is conducted per national regulations MEDDEV is more explicit. “at the same time” not mentioned in the GHTF. Where it has been “authorized” in MEDDEV vs. “conducted” in GHTF

MEDDEV 2.7/3: 2010 GHTF/SGS/N5: 2012 Comments 7. Reporting timelines:   From Sponsor to NCAs - Within 2 calendar days for events indicating imminent risk of death, serious injury or illness and that require prompt remedial action for patients, users or other persons (potential public health hazard in Note 11) - All other reportable events : immediately but not later than 7 calendar days after awareness by sponsor 7. Timing for reporting - Within 48 hours: SAEs creating serious health threat - No later than 10 elapsed calendar days: USADEs, SAEs other than unanticipated resulting in life threatening/permanent impairment/ fetal implications - No later than 30 elapsed calendar days: all other reportable events (in-patient or prolongation of hospitalization/ resulting in intervention to prevent life threatening) and device deficiencies which may have led to serious injury Not the same timelines for different categories of reportable events – GHTF has more differentiation. GHTF not aligned with EU directive (i.e. can 30 days be considered as “immediately” per Annex X 2.3.5?) From Investigators to Sponsor Acceptable timely conditions but not later than within 3 calendar days after the occurrence of the event GHTF document does not include a specific section on time of reports from investigator to Sponsor. MEDDEV refers to the date of occurrence which may be different from the awareness of the event by the investigator 8. Format / content of the report Cumulative tabular format to all NCAs - 3 categories for device and procedure relatedness No format: Not clearly defined if tabular format or individual reporting but very detailed information required (initial and final report) 4 categories for device and procedure relatedness  No alignment between MEDDEV and GHTF No special conditions requirements Special conditions requirements included: Combination devices, unblinded controlled studies , implantable medical devices… More explicit in GHTF regarding special conditions Reporting of events occurring with “comparator” is required for all studies   Reporting of events occurring with “comparator” only required in case of unblinded controlled studies (otherwise reporting per post market requirements) SAEs for all devices including comparator in MEDDEV 2.7/3. Nothing mentioned regarding the reporting SAEs of comparator in ISO 14155:2011 (only collecting)  No diagram  Diagram defining AE reportability and timelines