Submission of Documents on the Pharmacovigilance System as Part of the Registration Dossier within the Framework of the EAEU Procedures: Analysis of Requirements and Typical Errors

INTRODUCTION. Documents on the pharmacovigilance system of the marketing authorisation holder (MAH), including the Pharmacovigilance System Master File (PSMF) and the PSMF-based summary of the pharmacovigilance system (SPS), are a mandatory component of the registration dossier for a medicinal product. Applicants must submit and update these documents in strict accordance with the legislation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Systematisation of the requirements for drafting and submitting documents on the pharmacovigilance system will help applicants streamline the documentation process.

AIM. This study aimed to analyse the requirements for submitting either the PSMF or the SPS, depending on the EAEU marketing authorisation procedure, and to describe typical errors made by applicants when submitting these documents.

DISCUSSION. The content of dossier documents on the pharmacovigilance system is regulated by the Rules of Good Pharmacovigilance Practice of the Eurasian Economic Union (Decision No. 87 of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) dated 3 November 2016), and their submission is governed by the Rules of Marketing Authorisation and Assessment of Medicinal Products for Human Use (EEC Council Decision No. 78 dated 3 November 2016). MAHs are required to keep documents on the pharmacovigilance system and the corresponding registration dossiers up to date. This article summarises the specific requirements for submitting either the PSMF or the SPS, depending on the EAEU marketing authorisation procedure. Additionally, this article highlights typical errors made by MAHs when preparing documents on the pharmacovigilance system. According to the EAEU Rules of Good Pharmacovigilance Practice, the first application submitted for marketing authorisation of a medicinal product in the EAEU should include the PSMF, and subsequent applications should include the SPS as part of the registration dossier. Changes to the pharmacovigilance documents should be made in accordance with the classifier (EEC Council Decision No. 78 dated 3 November 2016).

CONCLUSIONS. This analysis of the requirements for the PSMF or the SPS as part of various marketing authorisation procedures will facilitate compliance with the requirements of the EAEU legislative acts and ensure correct submission of necessary documents on the pharmacovigilance system by applicants. In addition, regulatory authorities will make fewer requests to submit missing information and grant more marketing authorisations.

ERRATUM

Erratum: Velts N.Yu. et al. Submission of Documents on the Pharmacovigilance System as Part of the Registration Dossier within the Framework of the EAEU Procedures: Analysis of Requirements and Typical Errors
https://www.risksafety.ru/jour/article/view/476

1. Snegireva II, Zhuravleva EO, Velts NYu. Expert evaluation of pharmacovigilance system documents included in the registration dossier. Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2020;8(4):191–7 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2020-8-4-191-197

2. Velts NYu, Zhuravleva EO, Kutekhova GV, Tereshkina NV. Pharmacovigilance system master file: an overview of changes in the EAEU good pharmaco-vigilance practice. Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2023;11(1):22–9 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2023-11-1- 22-29

3. Taube AA, Evko IY, Sinitova SV, Krasheninnikov AE, Zhuravleva MV, Romanov BK, Alyautdin RN. Russian pharmacovigilance: ways to improve efficiency. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy. 2022;24(1):81–90 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17816/brmma89665

4. Taube AA, Romanov BK. Audits and inspections of pharmacovigilance systems in Russia. Good Clinical Practice. 2023;(1):4–14 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37489/2588-0519-2023-1-4-14

5. Patel P, Badjatya JK, Hinge M. Comparative study of regulatory requirements of drug product in emerging market. Int J Drug Reg Affairs. 2019;7(3):48–2. https://doi.org/10.22270/ijdra.v7i3.350

6. Potts J, Genov G, Segec A, Raine J, Straus S, Arlett P. Improving the safety of medicines in the European Union: from signals to action. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107(3):521–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1678

7. Zhuravleva EO, Velts NYu, Kutekhova GV. Analysis of noncompliances with legislative requirements in pharmacovigilance materials of registration dossiers. Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. 2021;9(4):185–90 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30895/2312-7821-2021-9-4-185-190

8. Rychikhina EM, Tkachenko OG, Kosenko VV. Recommendations on the EAEU marketing authorisation procedures to optimise the performance of regulatory affairs specialists. Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Regulatory Research and Medicine Evaluation. 2023;13(2–1):345–60 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30895/1991-2919-2023-544

9. Taube AA, Levashova AYu. Bringing the registration dossier for a medicinal product in line with the requirements of the Eurasian Economic Union. Journal of Pharmaceuticals Quality Assurance Issues. 2020;2(28):40–7 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.34907/JPQAI.2020.22.25.006

10. Sitnikova EA, Mardanly SG, Rogozhnikova EP. The system of pharmacovigilance at a pharmaceutical plant. Drug Development and Registration. 2018;(2):170–2 (In Russ.)