Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction to Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Principles and Practice of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Safety

  • 203 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter will introduce the main terms and concepts related to drug safety. This includes definitions, epidemiology, diagnosis, and classification of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as well as the shift to a more holistic view of drug safety in relation to medication errors, issues in clinical practice, and regulatory approaches. The development of modern pharmacovigilance and drug safety practices can be attributed to a series of drug safety events that took place throughout the twentieth century. Even with high-quality randomized controlled trials, the safety of new medicines is not guaranteed due to limitations of the clinical trials, such as trial size, exclusion of subjects at risk of developing ADRs, short trial durations, and the nature of potential ADRs. Clinical trials are unlikely to detect infrequent ADRs or those that are delayed. Once marketed, large numbers of individuals can be exposed to the drug and detection of new ADRs is possible.

Spontaneous reporting of ADRs by health-care professionals and patients is one of the primary methods of detecting new safety signals, and post-marketing observational studies using real-world data are used to investigate potential signals. For methodological reasons, several terms related to ADRs, as well as dictionaries of ADRs, have been developed, which are essential for the quantitative examination of drug safety issues. Pharmacovigilance is a collaborative venture including health-care professionals, patients, regulators, and pharmaceutical companies to ensure that the chances of finding new safety issues are maximized.

Even following successful detection of an ADR, the complex communication and ethical issues present challenges. In clinical practice, the burden of harms generally comes from the most frequently used drugs, and good patient management is enhanced by understanding of the principles and methods in pharmacovigilance and the safe use of medicines. At the local level, managing polypharmacy in an aging population will become increasingly challenging. The future of pharmacovigilance will see major developments in pharmacoinformatics, artificial intelligence, and pharmacogenomics. Continued educational efforts at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels are required to enhance the effective practice of drug safety and pharmacovigilance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rawlins MD. Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? The William Withering Lecture 1994. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995;29(1):41–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mann R, Andrew E. The Basis of pharmacovigilance: introduction. In: Mann R, Andrews E, editors. Pharmacovigilance. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2007. p. 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Regulation and prequalification. 2023. Available at: https://www.who.int/teams/regulationprequalification/regulation-and-safety/pharmacovigilance. Accessed 9 Nov 2023.

  4. Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences. WHO Working Group on Vaccine Pharmacovigilance. Definition and application of terms for vaccine pharmacovigilance. 2012. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/report_working_group_on_vaccine_LR.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2023.

  5. Fornasier G, Francescon S, Leone R, Baldo P. An historical overview over Pharmacovigilance. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40:744–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Routledge P. 150 years of pharmacovigilance. Lancet (London, England). 1998;351(9110):1200–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stephens MD. The dawn of drug safety. Hampshire: George Mann; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Van Grootheest K. The dawn of pharmacovigilance: an historical perspective. Int J Pharm Med. 2003;17(5–6):195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Geiling EMK, Cannon PR. Pathogenic effects of elixir of sulfanilamide (diethylene glycol) poisoning. JAMA. 1938;111:919.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization. WHO urges action to protect children from contaminated medicines. 23 Jan 2023b. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/23-01-2023-who-urges-action-to-protect-children-from-contaminated-medicines. Accessed 13 Nov 2023.

  11. Shafique S. Thalidomide—an overview and the species-specific teratogenicity. Res J Congenit Dis. 2019;2:1.

    Google Scholar 

  12. McBride WG. Thalidomide and congenital abnormalities. Lancet. 1961;2(1358):90927–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mohamed IN. Pharmacovigilance and reporting adverse drug reactions. Med Health. 2014;9(2):92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards IR. An agenda for UK clinical pharmacology: pharmacovigilance. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;73(6):979–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mann RD. An instructive example of a long-latency adverse drug reaction—sclerosing peritonitis due to practolol. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(11):1211–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldkind L, Laine L. A systematic review of NSAIDs withdrawn from the market due to hepatotoxicity: lessons learned from the bromfenac experience. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(4):213–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Solomon DH, Avorn J. Coxibs, science, and the public trust. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(2):158–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Platt R, Brown JS, Robb M, McClellan M, Ball R, Nguyen MD, Sherman RE. The FDA sentinel initiative—an evolving national resource. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(22):2091–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Syrowatka A, Song W, Amato MG, Foer D, Edrees H, Kuznetsova M, Dulgarian S, Seger DL, Simona A, Bain PA, Jackson GP. Key use cases for artificial intelligence to reduce the frequency of adverse drug events: a scoping review. Lancet Digital Health. 2022;4(2):e137–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Freidman MA, et al. The safety of newly marketed approved medicines: do recent market removals mean there is a problem? JAMA. 1999;281(18):1728–34.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Santoro A, Genov G, Spooner A, Raine J, Arlett P. Promoting and protecting public health: how the European Union pharmacovigilance system works. Drug Saf. 2017;40:855–69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Park JE, Yi J, Kwon O. Twenty years of traditional and complementary medicine regulation and its impact in Malaysia: achievements and policy lessons. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tsintis P, La Mache E. CIOMS and ICH initiatives in pharmacovigilance and risk management: overview and implications. Drug Saf. 2004;27:509–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aronson JK, Ferner RE. Clarification of terminology in drug safety. Drug Saf. 2005;28(10):851–70. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200528100-00003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. World Health Organization. International drug monitoring: the role of national centres. Technical report series no. 498. Geneva: WHO; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). CIOMS cumulative pharmacovigilance glossary, Geneva, Switzerland. 2021. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CIOMS-Cumulative-PV-Glossary-v1.0.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2022.

  27. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Topic E 2 A clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting. 1995. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/international-conference-harmonisation-technical-requirements-registration-pharmaceuticals-human-use_en-15.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2022.

  28. European Medicine Agency. Eudravigilance—European database of suspected adverse drug reaction reports. 2001. https://www.adrreports.eu/en/glossary.html#. Accessed 28 Nov 2023.

  29. US Food and Drug Administration. CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. 2023. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=201.57. Accessed 28 Nov 2023.

  30. Health Canada—Canada Vigilance Program. The guidance document for industry—reporting adverse reactions to marketed health products. 2009. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/sc-hc/H164-33-2009E.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2023.

  31. American Society of Hospital Pharmacy. ASHP guidelines on adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting. Am J Health Syst Pharm (AJHP). 1995;52(4):417–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/52.4.417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schatz SN, Weber RJ. Adverse drug reactions. PSAP. 2015. Available at: https://www.accp.com/docs/bookstore/psap/2015B2.SampleChapter.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2022.

  33. Krska K, Cox AR. Adverse drug reactions. In: Whittlesea K, Hodson K, editors. Clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 6th ed. Oxford: Elsevier; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  34. European Medical Writers Association. Pharmacovigilance glossary. 2017. https://www.emwa.org/media/2640/pv-sig-glossary-august-2017.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2022.

  35. European Medicine Agency. Clinical safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting. 1995. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/international-conference-harmonisation-technical-requirements-registration-pharmaceuticals-human-use_en-15.pdf.

  36. World Health Organization. Safety monitoring of medicinal products—reporting system for the general public. 2012. 9789241503198-eng.pdf (who.int). Accessed 12 Nov 2023.

    Google Scholar 

  37. World Health Organization. Serious AEFI. 2018. https://www.who.int/groups/global-advisory-committee-on-vaccine-safety/topics/aefi/serious-aefi#cms. Accessed 1 Dec 2023.

  38. National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention. Medication errors. 2023. Available at: https://www.nccmerp.org/about-medication-errors. Accessed 13 Nov 2023.

  39. Rawlins MD. Adverse reactions to drugs. Br Med J. 1981;282:974–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet (London, England). 2000;356(9237):1255–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02799-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aronson JK, Ferner RE. The law of mass action and the pharmacological concentration-effect curve: resolving the paradox of apparently non-dose-related adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;81(1):56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aronson JK, Ferner RE. Joining the DoTS: new approach to classifying adverse drug reactions. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2003;327(7425):1222–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7425.1222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dipiro CV. Obesity. In: Schwinghammer TL, Dipiro JT, Ellingrod VL, Dipiro CV, editors. Dipiro’s pharmacotherapy handbook. 12th ed. McGraw Hill; 2023. p. 657–6.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lee SJ, Kavanaugh A. Adverse reactions to biologic agents: focus on autoimmune disease therapies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;116(4):900–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2005.03.028.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pichler WJ. Adverse side-effects to biological agents. Allergy. 2006;61(8):912–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01058.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ditto AM. Drug allergy part A: introduction, epidemiology, classification of adverse reactions, immunological basis, risk factors, evaluation of patients with suspected drug allergy, patient management considerations. In: Grammer LC, Greenberger PA, editors. Patterson’s allergic diseases. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p. 295–334.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Greenberger PA. Drug allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2 Suppl Mini-Primer):S464–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2005.11.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. A guideline on summary of product characteristics. Revision 2. 2009. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-1/smpc_guideline_rev2_en_0.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2023.

  49. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Medical dictionary. 2023. https://www.meddra.org/about-meddra/history. Accessed Aug 2022.

  50. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. WHO-ART legacy service. 2023. https://who-umc.org/vigibase/vigibase-services/who-art/. Accessed 19 Nov 2023.

  51. World Health Organisation. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases. Accessed on 24 th February 2024.

  52. SNOMED International. SNOMED CT. 2022. Available at: https://www.snomed.org/. Accessed 5 Aug 2022.

  53. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Reporting adverse drug reactions. Definition of terms and criteria for their use. 1999. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/reporting_adverse_drug.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2022.

  54. Lagerlund O, Strese S, Fladvad M, Lindquist M. WHODrug: a global, validated and updated dictionary for medicinal information. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(5):1116–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-020-00130-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. WHO-drug global. 2022. Available at: https://who-umc.org/whodrug/whodrug-global/. Accessed 5 Aug 2022.

  56. European Medicine Agency. Electronic submission of medicinal product information by marketing-authorisation holders Article 57 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Available at https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/electronic-submission-medicinal-product-information-marketing-authorisation-holders_en.pdf. Accessed on 14 th May 2024.

  57. Pirmohamed M, Breckenridge AM, Kitteringham NR, Park BK. Adverse drug reactions. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1998;316(7140):1295–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7140.1295.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. European Medicine Agency. Guideline on key aspects for the use of pharmacogenomics in the pharmacovigilance of medicinal products. 2015. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-key-aspects-use-pharmacogenomics-pharmacovigilance-medicinal-products_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2022.

  59. Schwab M, Schaeffeler E. Pharmacogenomics: a key component of personalized therapy. Genome Med. 2012;4(11):93. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Dere WH, Suto TS. The role of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in improving translational medicine. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2009;6(1):13–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Rawlins M. De Testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Clin Med (Lond). 2008;8(6):579–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Borgerson K. Valuing evidence: bias and the evidence hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 2009;52(2):218–33. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Solomon M. Just a paradigm: evidence-based medicine in epistemological context. Eur J Philos Sci. 2011;1(3):451–66.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stegenga J. Down with the hierarchies. Topoi. 2013;33(2):313–22.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bluhm R. From hierarchy to network: a richer view of evidence for evidence-based medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 2005;48(4):535–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Baron JA, Sandler RS, Bresalier RS, Lanas A, Morton DG, Riddell R, Iverson ER, DeMets DL. Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib: final analysis of the APPROVe trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9651):1756–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1756–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Onakpoya IJ, Heneghan CJ, Aronson JK. Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature. BMC Med. 2016;14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0553-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Aronson JK, Hauben M. Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence. BMJ. 2006;2006(333):1267. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Scheife RT, Hines LE, Boyce RD, Chung SP, Momper JD, Sommer CD, Abernethy DR, Horn JR, Sklar SJ, Wong SK, Jones G, Brown ML, Grizzle AJ, Comes S, Wilkins TL, Borst C, Wittie MA, Malone DC. Consensus recommendations for systematic evaluation of drug-drug interaction evidence for clinical decision support. Drug Saf. 2015;38(2):197–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0262-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Ventola CL. Big data and pharmacovigilance: data mining for adverse drug events and interactions. P T. 2018;43(6):340–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Dimbil M, Kyle R, Brown JS, Aldairy W. Using real-world data for rapid safety investigations: value of near-real-time clinical data querying. Drug Saf. 2022;45(10):1251–2.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lieu TA, Kulldorff M, Davis RL, Lewis EM, Weintraub E, Yih K, Yin R, Brown JS, Platt R, Vaccine Safety Datalink Rapid Cycle Analysis Team. Real-time vaccine safety surveillance for the early detection of adverse events. Med Care. 2007;45:S89–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bate A, Hornbuckle K, Juhaeri J, et al. Hypothesis-free signal detection in healthcare databases: finding its value for pharmacovigilance. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019;10:2042098619864744.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Gatto NM, Sobel RE, Geier J, Mo J, Bate A, Reynolds RF. The role of pharmacoepidemiology in industry. In: Pharmacoepidemiology. Wiley; 2019. p. 98–125.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Talbot JC, Nilsson BS. Pharmacovigilance in the pharmaceutical industry. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;45(5):427.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Hartford CG, Petchel KS, Mickail H, Perez-Gutthann S, McHale M, Grana JM, Marquez P. Pharmacovigilance during the pre-approval phases: an evolving pharmaceutical industry model in response to ICH E2E, CIOMS VI, FDA and EMEA/CHMP risk-management guidelines. Drug Saf. 2006;29:657–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Bahri P. Public pharmacovigilance communication: a process calling for evidence-based, objective-driven strategies. Drug Saf. 2010;33:1065–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ricci JR, et al. Prescriber compliance with black box warnings in older adult patients. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(11):e103–883.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Forbes N, Cooray M, et al. Changes in domperidone prescribing practices after a “Black Box” warning: are we exposing inpatients to unnecessary cardiac risk? Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:S476.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hollingsbee D, Maskrey N, Hutchinson A, Underhill J, Bowes A. Changing current practice—the prescribing of NSAIDs. Prescriber. 2011;22:45–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/psb.795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Chinchilla K, Matos C, Hall V, van Hunsel F. Patient organizations’ barriers in pharmacovigilance and strategies to stimulate their participation. Drug Saf. 2021;44(2):181–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-020-00999-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Dal Pan GJ. Ongoing challenges in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2014;37(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0123-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Seselja Perisin A, Bukic J, Rusic D, Leskur D, Bozic J, Mihanovic A, Vilovic M, Cohadzic T, Modun D. Teaching pharmacovigilance to healthcare students: identifying gaps and opportunities for improvement. Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;9(3):147. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy9030147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Beckmann J, Hagemann U, Bahri P, Bate A, Boyd IW, Dal Pan GJ, Edwards BD, Edwards IR, Hartigan-Go K, Lindquist M, McEwen J, Moride Y, Olsson S, Pal SN, Soulaymani-Bencheikh R, Tuccori M, Vaca CP, Wong IC. Teaching pharmacovigilance: the WHO-ISoP core elements of a comprehensive modular curriculum. Drug Saf. 2014;37(10):743–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0216-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Cox AR, Marriott JF, Wilson KA, Ferner RE. Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004;29:31–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Comoglio RH. Undergraduate and postgraduate pharmacovigilance education: a proposal for appropriate curriculum content. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(4):779–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Hartman J, Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E. A global view of undergraduate education in pharmacovigilance. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73(7):891–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2237-z. Epub 2017 Mar 17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Jose J, van Eekeren R, Jimmy B. Medication safety education through games: a potential approach to educate healthcare students on adverse drug reactions. Int J Pharm Pract. 2021;29(1):91–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Schutte T, Tichelaar J, Reumerman MO, van Eekeren R, Rolfes L, van Puijenbroek EP, Richir MC, van Agtmael MA. Feasibility and educational value of a student-run pharmacovigilance programme: a prospective cohort study. Drug Saf. 2017;40(5):409–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0502-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Reumerman M, Tichelaar J, Piersma B, Richir MC, van Agtmael MA. Urgent need to modernize pharmacovigilance education in healthcare curricula: review of the literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74(10):1235–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-018-2500-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. van Eekeren R, Rolfes L, Koster AS, Magro L, Parthasarathi G, Al Ramimmy H, Schutte T, Tanaka D, van Puijenbroek E, Härmark L. What future healthcare professionals need to know about pharmacovigilance: introduction of the WHO PV core curriculum for university teaching with focus on clinical aspects. Drug Saf. 2018;41(11):1003–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0681-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Jose J. Communication on drug safety-related matters to patients: is it even more significant in this digital era? Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2020;11:2042098620915057. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098620915057.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Steurbaut S, Hanssens Y. Pharmacovigilance: empowering healthcare professionals and patients. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(5):859–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-014-0004-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Panagioti M, Khan K, Keers R N, Abuzour A, Phipps D, Kontopantelis E et al. Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2019;366:l4185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4185.

  96. Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Long J, Hilmer S. A systematic review of the emerging definition of ‘deprescribing’ with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80(6):1254–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12732.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Swen JJ, van der Wouden CH, Manson LE, Abdullah-Koolmees H, Blagec K, Blagus T, Böhringer S, Cambon-Thomsen A, Cecchin E, Cheung KC, Deneer VH, Dupui M, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Jonsson S, Joefield-Roka C, Just KS, Karlsson MO, Konta L, Koopmann R, Kriek M, et al. A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study. Lancet (London, England). 2023;401(10374):347–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01841-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. World Health Organization. Medication without harm. 2017. https://www.who.int/initiatives/medication-without-harm. Accessed 8 Nov 2023.

  99. Seden K, Kirkham JJ, Kennedy T, et al. Cross-sectional study of prescribing errors in patients admitted to nine hospitals across North West England. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002036. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002036.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Nuckols TK, Smith-Spangler C, Morton SC, Asch SM, Patel VM, Anderson LJ, et al. The effectiveness of computerized order entry at reducing preventable adverse drug events and medication errors in hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2014;3:56. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Schwartzberg D, Ivanovic S, Patel S, Burjonrappa SC. We thought we would be perfect: medication errors before and after the initiation of computerized physician order entry. J Surg Res. 2015;198(1):108–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Jose J. Pharmacovigilance: basic concepts and application of pharmacoinformatics. In: Gasmelseid TG, editor. Pharmacoinformatics and drug discovery technologies: theories and applications. 1st ed. Pennsylvania: IGI Global; 2012. p. 322–43.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Frontiers in Pharmacology. Pharmacoinformatics: new developments and challenges in drug design. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/50433/pharmacoinformatics-new-developments-and-challenges-in-drug-design. Accessed 23 Sept 2023.

  104. Lewis DJ, McCallum JF. Utilizing advanced technologies to augment pharmacovigilance systems: challenges and opportunities. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(4):888–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-019-00023-3. Epub 2019 Dec 28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Ball R, Dal Pan G. “Artificial intelligence” for pharmacovigilance: ready for prime time? Drug Saf. 2022;45(5):429–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-022-01157-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Hauben M. The potential of artificial intelligence in pharmacovigilance. J Faculty Pharm Med. 2020. Available at: https://www.fpm.org.uk/journals/the-potential-of-artificial-intelligence-in-pharmacovigilance/. Accessed 21 Sept 2023.

  107. Google Cloud. Artificial intelligence (AI) vs. machine learning (ML). https://cloud.google.com/learn/artificial-intelligence-vs-machine-learning. Accessed 24 Sept 2023.

  108. Bate A, Stegmann J. Artificial intelligence and pharmacovigilance: what is happening, what could happen and what should happen? Health Policy Technol. 2023;12(2):2023.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Painter JL, Raymond K, Bate A. An industry perspective on the use of machine learning in drug and vaccine safety. Front Drug Saf Regul. 2023b;3:1110498. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdsfr.2023.1110498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Comfort S, Dorrell D, Meireis S, Fine J. MOdified NARanjo Causality Scale for ICSRs (MONARCSi): a decision support tool for safety scientists. Drug Saf. 2018;41(11):1073–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-018-0690-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Ghosh R, Kempf D, Pufko A, Barrios Martinez LF, Davis CM, et al. Automation opportunities in pharmacovigilance: an industry survey. Pharmaceut Med. 2020;34:7–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Salas M, Petracek J, Yalamanchili P, Aimer O, Kasthuril D, Dhingra S, Junaid T, Bostic T. The use of artificial intelligence in pharmacovigilance: a systematic review of the literature. Pharm Med. 2022;36(5):295–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-022-00441-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Alowais SA, Alghamdi SS, Alsuhebany N, Alqahtani T, Alshaya AI, Almohareb SN, Aldairem A, Alrashed M, Bin Saleh K, Badreldin HA, Al Yami MS, Al Harbi S, Albekairy AM. Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):689. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Smith MJ, Komparic A, Thompson A. Deploying the precautionary principle to protect vulnerable populations in Canadian post-market drug surveillance. Can J Bioethics. 2020;3(1):110–8.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Edwards IR. The future of pharmacovigilance: a personal view. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(2):173–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Trifirò G, Sultana J, Bate A. From big data to smart data for pharmacovigilance: the role of healthcare databases and other emerging sources. Drug Saf. 2018;41:143–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Painter JL, Mahaux O, Vanini M, Kara V, Roshan C, Karwowski M, Chalamalasetti VR, Bate A. Enhancing drug safety documentation search capabilities with large language models: a user-centric approach. In: 2023 International conference on computational science and computational intelligence (CSCI). IEEE CPS proceedings; 2023a. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Edwards IR. Spontaneous reporting—of what? Clinical concerns about drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48(2):138.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman

    Jimmy Jose

  2. Clinical Pharmacy and Drug Safety School of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Anthony R. Cox

  3. GSK, Brentford, UK

    Andrew Bate

  4. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Andrew Bate

Authors
  1. Jimmy Jose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony R. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Bate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jimmy Jose .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman

    Jimmy Jose

  2. School of Pharmacy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Anthony R. Cox

  3. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College, London, UK

    Vibhu Paudyal

Ethics declarations

Andrew Bate is an employee of GSK and holds stock and stock options.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jose, J., Cox, A.R., Bate, A. (2024). Introduction to Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance. In: Jose, J., Cox, A.R., Paudyal, V. (eds) Principles and Practice of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Safety. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51089-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation