Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 787–789 | Cite as

Is pharmacovigilance of biologicals cost-effective?

  • Barbara ClausEmail author
Commentary

Abstract

Pharmacovigilance is an essential part of the post-marketing surveillance of new biologicals. It not only requires a substantial investment of the marketing authorization holder but also of the clinical field to provide accurate safety information. Hence, does pharmacovigilance delivers value for money? This important question needs to be discussed in the light of regulatory requirements, value and cost.

Keywords

Biologicals Biosimilars Cost-effectiveness Pharmacovigilance 

Notes

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Bouvy JC, Ebbers HC, Schellekens H, Koopmanschap MA. The cost-effectiveness of periodic safety update reports for biologicals in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(5):433–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Commission. The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union Guidelines on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use. [Homepage on the Internet]. https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/pharmacovigilance_en (2012). Accessed 21 May 2018.
  3. 3.
    Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Meyboom RH, Straus SM, Leufkens HG, Egberts TC. Mapping the safety profile of biologicals: a disproportionality analysis using the WHO adverse drug reaction database,VigiBase. Drug Saf. 2010;33(10):865–78.  https://doi.org/10.2165/11538330-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Medicines Agency. Guidelines on good pharmacovigilance practices. EMA/529641/2016. 15 August 2016. [Homepage on the Internet]. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2016/08/WC500211728.pdf (2016). Accessed 21 May 2018.
  5. 5.
    Downing NS, Shah ND, Aminawung JA, Pease AM, Zeitoun JD, Krumholz HM, Ross JS. Postmarket safety events among novel therapeutics approved by the food and drug administration between 2001 and 2010. JAMA. 2017;317(18):1854–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moorkens E, Jonker-Exler C, Huys I, Declerck P, Simoens S, Vulto AG. Overcoming -barriers to market access of biosimilars in the European Union: the case of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. Front Pharmacol. 2016;7:193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein K, Scholl J, Vermeer NS, Broekmans AW, Van Puijenbroek EP, De Bruin ML, Stolk P. Traceability of biologics in the Netherlands: an analysis of information-recording systems in clinical practice and spontaneous ADR reports. Drug Saf. 2016;39(2):185–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauters T, Vandenbroucke J. Development of a flowchart for risk assessment and allocation of preparation of monoclonal antibodies. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155217743095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claus BO, Bauters T, Somers A. Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars and other biologicals within the hospital: current practices and future challenges. GaBI J. 2017;6(1):24–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, Janecek E, Domecq C, Greenblatt DJ. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30(2):239–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouvy JC, De Huinink L, Bruin ML. Benefit-risk reassessment of medicines: a retrospective analysis of all safety-related referral procedures in Europe during 2001–2012. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(9):1004–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pharmacy DepartmentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations