An updated review on Materiovigilance for safe use of medical devices

  • Mansi Deshwal Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University
  • Manju Nagpal
  • Gitika Arora Dhingra NCRD’s Sterling Institute of Pharmacy, Nerul, Navi Mumbai
  • Geeta Aggarwal Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University


In the last two decades, there has been an upsurge in the volume of medical devices and thereby increasing medical device-related adverse events. So, materiovigilance is an essential system for identifying, collecting, reporting and analysing adverse events related to medical devices. The Vigilance programme for the medical device was initiated in many countries many years ago but, is a quite new concept for India. The Materiovigilance programme in India was launched on July 6 2015, at the Indian Pharmacopoeial Commission (IPC) with the objective of monitoring adverse events, thereby reducing risks related to use of medical devices and also creating awareness among different stakeholders for improving patients’ safety. The intent of this review article is to provide holistic understanding of medical device related adverse events; classification, reporting criteria, what, where, how, who and why, timeframe and tools used for reporting. Data collected using various search engines and compiled to give complete information regarding the subject matter. The thorough understanding of current status of materiovigilance programme in India including challenges involved in the programme and future directions for improving has been stated. Case studies have been reviewed for Johnson & Johnson’s faulty hip implant and Medtronic premature battery depletion. Implementation of Materiovigilance programme of India (MvPI) version 1.1 lead to safeguard the health of device user by preventing recurrence and risk associated with medical device.

Keywords: Materiovigilance, post-marketing surveillance, Medical Device Monitoring Centres (MDMCs), medical device vigilance, adverse events, Medical Device Rule (MDR), CDSCO, FDA, Materiovigilance programme of India (MvPI), Indian Pharmacopoeial Commission (IPC)


Download data is not yet available.


1. Gupta SK. Medical Device Regulations: A Current Perspective. J Young Pharm. 2016; 8(1):6–11
2. CDSCO. Medical Device Rule [Internet]. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Government of India; 2017 [cited 2019 Sept 2]. Available from:
3. CDSCO. Classification of Newly Notified Medical Devices to be updated with Classification list of Medical Devices and IVDs, Drug Controller General (India) [Internet] India: CDSCO; 2019 [cited 2019 Jul 12]. Available from:
4. Guidance Document: Materiovigilance Programme of India (version 1.1) [Internet]. IPC;2009 [cited 2019 Sept 9]. Available from:
5. Rani SD, Singh KD. Materiovigilance: An Emerging Discipline. Int J Sci Res. 2018 June;7(6):15–6.
6. Chauhan P, Zarreen A, Iqubal Mk. Current Status of Materiovigilance Globally-an Utter Overview with Clinical Case Perusal. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2019;11(10):1–8.
7. Kumar P, Kalaiselvan V, Kaur I, Thota P, Singh GN. Materiovigilance Programme of India (MvPI): A Step Towards Patient Safety for Medical Devices. Eur J Biomed Pharm Sci. 2016;3(12):497–501.
8. Gupta P, Janodia MD, Jagadish PC, Udupa N. Medical device vigilance systems: India, US, UK, and Australia. Med Devices Evid Res. 2010;3(1):67-79.
9. Medical devices Imports: Single regulatory framework likely for all medical devices. The Economics Times [Internet]. 2019 Oct 14 [cited 2019 Dec 23]. Available from:
10. India strengthens medical device regulation. ICIJ [Internet]. 2019 Oct 21 [cited 2019 Dec 20]. Available from:
11. Nautiyal S. MvPI reports 1,213 medical devices adverse event reports from across country since 2014 [Internet]. Mumbai: Pharmabiz;2019 [cited 2019 December 15]. Available from:
12. Implant Files – First official red flags: over 500 adverse events. The Indian Express [Internet]. 2018 Nov 26 [cited 2019 Dec 23]. Available from:
13. Shukla S, Gupta M, Pandit S, Thomson M, Shivhare A, Nath G. Implementation of adverse event reporting for medical devices, India. Bull World Health Organ. 2020 Mar 1; 98(3):206.
14. Shocking negligence: on need for materio-vigilance. The Hindu [Internet]. 2018 Aug 30 [cited 2019 Jan 8]. Available from:
15. J&J’s subsidiary hip replacement row: A detailed timeline of events that hit this global giant. The Economic Times [Internet]. 2018 Sep 4 [cited 2019 Jan 14]. Available from:…
16. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Recall of DePuy Orthopaedics ASR hip replacement device [Internet]. 2011 May 16 [cited 2019 Dec 23]. Available from: device
17. After US FDA, CDSCO issues device alert on 3 Medtronic pacemakers. The Indian Express [Internet]. Indianexpress; 2019 May 19 [cited 2019 Jun 20]. Available from:
18. Product Information Notice [Internet]. Medtronic; 2019 [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from:
19. USA. Food and Drug Administration. FDA issues alert on potential premature battery depletion of certain Medtronic implantable pacemakers, approves related enhancements to device [Internet]. 2019 May 7 [cited 2019 Jul 4]. Available from:
20. Medical Device Overview [Internet]. US FDA; 2018 [cited 2019 Nov 11].Available from:
21. Classify Your Medical Device [Internet]. US FDA; 2020 [cited 2019 Nov 16]. Available from:
22. Medical Device Reporting (MDR): How to Report Medical Device Problems [Internet]. US FDA; 2020 [cited 2019 Aug 07]. Available from:
23. Medical Device Reporting for Manufacturers Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff Preface Public Comment [Internet]. US FDA; 2016. [cited 2020 Mar 23]. Available from:
24. Mandatory Reporting Requirements: Manufacturers, Importers and Device User Facilities [Internet]. US FDA; 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 23]. Available from:
25. Markan S, Nath R, Sharma J, Chekuri DK. Indian Medical Device Sector - Blue Print & Regulatory Policy Roadmap. Int J Drug Reg Affairs [Internet]. 2020Jun.22 [cited 2020 Sept.18];8(2):25-. Available from:
26. Tikoo S, Shukla VK. Global scenario of Medical Device vigilance system. Int J Drug Reg Affairs [Internet]. 2020Mar.16 [cited 2020 Sept.18];8(1):36-3. Available from:
27. Jayanti VR, Madisi P, Murthy KVR. Requirements for introducing Medical devices in India and US market - A comparative study of regulations. Int J Drug Reg Affairs [Internet]. 2018Dec.15 [cited 2020 Sept.18];6(4):9-20. Available from:
28. Budhwaar V, Rohilla Y, Choudhary M, kumar P. Regulations of registration and import of Medical device in India. Int J Drug Reg Affairs [Internet]. 2018Mar.15 [cited 2020 Sept.18];6(1):8-12. Available from:
29. M AA. Regulatory environment for Medical devices in New Zealand. Int J Drug Reg Affairs [Internet]. 2018Mar.19 [cited 2020 Sept.21];5(1):1-12. Available from:
30. Kulshreshtha C, Venkatesh MP, Shrisha K, Kumar PT, Kumar PT. CLINICAL TRIAL IN INDIA: RISE AND FALL. Int J Drug Reg Affairs [Internet]. 2015Mar.6 [cited 2020 Sept.19];3(1):1-13. Available from:
737 Views | 341 Downloads
How to Cite
Mansi Deshwal, Manju Nagpal, Gitika Arora Dhingra, and Geeta Aggarwal. “An Updated Review on Materiovigilance for Safe Use of Medical Devices”. International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs, Vol. 8, no. 4, Dec. 2020, pp. 5-13, doi:10.22270/ijdra.v8i4.428.