Purpose Recent public health safety issues involving medical devices have led to a growing demand to improve the current passive‐reactive postmarket surveillance (PMS) system. Various European Union (EU) national competent authorities have started to focus on strengthening the postmarket risk evaluation. As a consequence, the new EU medical device regulation was published; it includes the concept of a PMS Plan. Methods This publication reviewed Annex III Technical Documentation on PMS and Annex XIV Part B: Postmarket clinical follow‐up from the new Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council on medical devices. Results The results of the PMS activities will be described in the PMS plan and will be used to update other related documents. A modular approach to structure the contents of the PMS plan will help to consistently update other PMS information. It is our suggestion that the PMS plan should consist of a PMS plan Core and a PMS plan Supplement. The PMS plan Core document will describe the PMS system, and the PMS plan Supplement will outline the specific activities performed by the manufacturer for a particular medical device. Conclusions The PMS plan may serve as a thorough tool for the benefit‐risk evaluation of medical devices. If properly developed and implemented, it will function as a key player in the establishment of a new framework for proactive safety evaluation of medical devices.

During the study period, no significant differences in the proportion or trend of products with aRMMs at the time of licensing before and after the pharmacovigilance legislation were identified.

Introduction Medication errors can have serious consequences for patients. To prevent the occurrence of medication errors in clinical practice, safety concerns may be included in the risk management plan and subsequently be addressed with routine and/or additional risk minimisation measures. Objective This study aims to describe safety concerns around medication errors and the risk minimisation measures for centrally authorised products in the European Union. Methods All safety concerns included in the risk management plans of originator centrally authorised products, authorised between 1 January, 2010 and 31 December, 2017, were collected from the European Public Assessment Report registry. Medication error safety concerns were categorised by Anatomical Therapeutic Classification code, year of authorisation, type of medication error and type of risk minimisation measure. Results During the study period, 311 centrally authorised products were approved, of which 84 had at least one medication error safety concern. The proportion of centrally authorised products with medication error safety concerns showed variation between 2010 and 2017 ranging from 15.2% to 36.4%. In total, 95 medication error safety concerns were identified. The type of medication error was highly variable, drug administration error was listed most frequently (n = 17). For 27 out of 95 medication error safety concerns, corresponding to 23 centrally authorised products, additional risk minimisation measures were required. All additional risk minimisation measures consisted of educational material targeted at healthcare professionals (85.2%) and/or patients (51.9%). For 78.3% of centrally authorised products with additional risk minimisation measures for medication errors, studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the additional risk minimisation measures were agreed upon. Conclusions Medication error safety concerns were listed for almost a quarter of centrally authorised products approved during the study period. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and continued need for additional risk minimisation measures for medication errors. Key PointsOver a quarter of medicines authorised in the European Union have medication errors as an important risk included in the risk management plan.Medication errors frequently require additional risk minimisation measures.Studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of measures implemented to minimise the risk of medication errors.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https ://doi.org/10.1007/s4026 4-019-00874 -7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs) may be required to minimise important risks of medicines. aRMMs may be required at the time of authorisation, but may also be introduced or discontinued during the product life cycle as new safety information arises. The aim of this study is to describe post-authorisation introductions of new aRMMs and discontinuations of existing aRMMs for medicines authorised in the European Union (EU). Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study that included all new active substances authorised through the EU centralised procedure between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2017. Data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports available on the website of the European Medicines Agency (ema.europa.eu). Medicines were followed up from the date of marketing authorisation (MA) until first introduction or discontinuation of aRMMs, excluding Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs), withdrawal/suspension/revocation of the MA, or July 1st 2018, when data extraction took place. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse frequency data, and survival analysis was used to calculate 5-and 10-year probability of introduction or discontinuation of aRMMs. Results A total of 476 medicines were authorised during the study period. The probability of getting aRMMs after authorisation for products authorised without aRMMs was 3.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-5.7] within 5 years after authorisation and 6.9% (95% CI 2.6-11) within 10 years after authorisation. For products authorised with aRMMs, the probability of discontinuation of aRMMs was 0.9% (95% CI 0-2.6) within 5 years and 8.3% (95% CI 0-16.1) within 10 years after authorisation. Conclusions We found low probabilities of introduction and discontinuation of aRMMs (excluding DHPCs) during the product life cycle for medicines authorised between 2006 and 2017. The low rate of discontinuation may potentially be due to a lack of robust data on effectiveness of aRMMs. Further research is needed to get more insight into the dynamics of aRMMs during the medicine life cycle.