Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 27, Issue 8, pp 569–578 | Cite as

The Periodic Safety Update Report as a Pharmacovigilance Tool

  • Michael J. Klepper
Leading Article

Abstract

The periodic safety update report for marketed drugs (PSUR) was designed to be a stand-alone document that allows a periodic but comprehensive assessment of the worldwide safety data of a marketed drug or biological product. The PSUR can be an important source for the identification of new safety signals, a means of determining changes in the benefit-risk profile, an effective means of risk communication to regulatory authorities and an indicator for the need for risk management initiatives, as well as a tracking mechanism monitoring the effectiveness of such initiatives. For these reasons, the PSUR can be an important pharmacovigilance tool.

Numerous steps are involved in the PSUR process including: intake of adverse drug reaction information, case processing, data retrieval, data analysis, and medical review and risk assessment. These processes are heavily reliant on the availability of adequate resources. An overarching principle throughout the PSUR process is the need for a proactive approach in order to identify the critical steps in the process and to have a clear understanding of the consequences of any critical ‘mis-step’. With this information comes appropriate planning, building quality into each step of the PSUR process and monitoring performance will maximise the likelihood of generating a quality report. Any failure of a key PSUR process will have the opposite effect — a poor quality report that will give little insight into emerging safety signals or provide misleading information that can adversely affect public health. A pragmatic approach that will avoid or minimise these pitfalls includes the following: adequate resource planning, training, development of ‘scripts’ designed to maximise the capture of key information for medically important reactions, standardised and harmonised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) coding procedures, pre-specified search criteria for data retrieval, ongoing medical review, and metrics to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiencies of these processes.

With these quality measures in place, the utility of the PSUR as an effective pharmacovigilance tool is enhanced.

Keywords

Medical Review Line Listing Marketing Authorisation Holder Individual Case Safety Report Risk Management Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges that he received no funding to assist in the preparation of this manuscript and no conflicts of interest exist with respect to the contents of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Working Group I. International reporting of periodic drug-safety update summaries. CIOMS, Geneva, Switzerland 1990Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clinical safety data management: periodic safety update reports for marketed drugs E2C. ICH Expert Working Group, November 1996. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/MediaServer.jser?.@_ID=477&@_MODE=GLB [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Working Group V. Current challenges in pharmacovigilance: pragmatic approaches. CIOMS, Geneva, Switzerland 2001Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Addendum to ICH E2C Clinical safety data management periodic safety update reports for marketed drugs. ICH Expert Working Group, February 2003. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/MediaServer.jser?.@_ID=478&@_MODE=GLB [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department of Health and Humans Services, the US Food and Drug Administration. Proposed safety regulations March 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-5204.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, 4 April 2001. Available from URL: http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_121/l_12120010501en00340044.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Concept Paper. Risk assessment of observational data: good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiologic assessment (draft) March 2003. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/meeting/groupIIIfinal.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ICH Working Group. Post-approval safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting E2D. November 2003. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/MediaServer.jser?.@_ID=631&@_MODE=GLB [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koch-Weser J, Sidel VW, Sweet RH, et al. Factors determining physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: comparison of 2000 spontaneous reports with surveillance studies at the Massachusetts General Hospital. N Engl J Med 1969 Jan; 280(1): 20–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strom BL, Tugwell P. Pharmacoepidemiology: current status, prospects, and problems. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 179–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott HD, Rosenblaum SE, Waters WJ, et al. Rhode Island physicians’ recognition and reporting of adverse drug reactions. R I Med J 1987; 70: 311–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sachs RM, Bortnichak EA. An evaluation of spontaneous adverse drug reaction monitoring systems. Am J Med 1986; 81Suppl. 5B: 49–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber JP. Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In: Rainsford KD, Velo GP, editors. Advances in inflammatory research. Vol. 6. New York: Raven Press, 1984: 1–7Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Begaud B, Moride Y, Tibert-Bitter P, et al. False-positives in spontaneous reporting: should we worry about them? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38: 401–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serradell J, Bjornson DC, Hartzema AG. Drug utilization study methodologies: national and international perspectives. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1987; 21: 994–01PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Szarfman A, Machado SG, O’Neill RT. Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher than expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA’s spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf 2002; 25(6): 381–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindquist M, Stahl M, Bate A, et al. A retrospective evaluation of a data mining approach to aid finding new adverse drug reaction signals in WHO international database. Drug Saf 2002; 23(6): 533–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evans SJW, Waller PC, Davis S. Use of proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) for signal generation from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. Pharmcoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001 Oct-Nov; 10(6): 483–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization (WHO) Adverse Reaction Terminology: critical term list. WHO Collaborating Center for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala, Sweden. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org [Accessed 2004 Mar 22]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    FDA Working Group CDER-PhRMA-AASLD Conference 2000, Clinical White Paper, November 2000 Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/livertox/clinical.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benichou C, editor. Adverse drug reactions: a practical guide to diagnosis and management. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1994Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venulet J, Ciucci A, Berneker GC. Standardized assessment of drug-adverse reaction associations: rationale and experience. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1980; 18(9): 381–8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MedDRA® term selection: points to consider, November 2003. Available from URL: http://www.meddramsso.com/New-Web2003/Docs/ptc_3.2_final.pdf [Accessed 2004 Jan 20]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Integrated Safety Systems Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations