Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Medicines Safety in the Globalized Context

  • Chapter
Global Pharmaceutical Policy

Abstract

This chapter narrates pharmacoepidemiology, medicines safety, pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction mechanisms globally. It also discusses why a pharmacovigilance system is important in the current global scenario and how it improves patient health. The chapter describes a summary of best practices related to medicines safety. There are examples of pharmacovigilance from America, Canada, New Zealand and other developed and developing countries. It also synthesizes key literature and, at the end of this chapter, there is a case study on Pakistan’s pharmacovigilance set-up. The chapter also includes suggestions for the future research agenda to improve medicines safety globally.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADR:

Adverse drug reaction

DRAP:

Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan

HCPs:

Healthcare professionals

MNHSRC:

Ministry of National Health Services and Regulation

NHS:

National Health Service

NPC:

National pharmacovigilance centre

PV:

Pharmacovigilance

SADR:

Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting

UMC:

Uppsala Monitoring Centre

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  • Abdel-Latif, M. M. & Abdel-Wahab, B. A. (2015). Knowledge and awareness of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance practices among healthcare professionals in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23, 154–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almandil, N. B. (2016). Healthcare professionals’ awareness and knowledge of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance. Saudi Medical Journal, 37, 1359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atif. M, Ahmad. M, Saleem. Q, Curley. L, Zaman. M & Z., B. (2017). Pharmaceutical Policy in Pakistan. In: Z., B. (ed.) Pharmaceutical Policy in Countries with Developing Healthcare Systems. Springer International, pp 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, G.R., Norton, P.G., Flintoft, V., Blais, R., Brown, A., Cox, J., Etchells, E., Ghali, W.A., Hébert, P., Majumdar, S.R. and O’Beirne, M. (2004). The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(11), pp.1678–1686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckström, M., Mjorndal, T., Dahlqvist, R. & Nordkvist-Olsson, T. (2000). Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 56, 729–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahri, P. & Tsintis, P. (2005). Pharmacovigilance‐related topics at the level of the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 14, 377–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahri, P., Tsintis, P. & Waller, P. C. (2007). Regulatory Pharmacovigilance In The Eu. In: Mann, R. D. & Andrews, E. B. (eds.) Pharmacovigilance. 2nd ed.: John Wiley & Sons, pp 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D.W., Cullen, D.J., Laird, N., Petersen, L.A., Small, S.D., Servi, D., Laffel, G., Sweitzer, B.J., Shea, B.F., Hallisey, R. and Vander Vliet, M. (1995). Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events: implications for prevention. Journal of American Medical Association, 274(1), pp.29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bénard‐Laribière, A., Miremont‐Salamé, G., Pérault‐Pochat, M.C., Noize, P., Haramburu, F. and EMIR Study Group on behalf of the French network of pharmacovigilance centres. (2015). Incidence of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions in France: the EMIR study. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology, 29(1), pp.106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, P. (2013). Pharmacovigilance in Asia. Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, 4, S7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. and K. Somers, Drug-related illness resulting in hospital admission. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1984. 18(1): p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caduff-Janosa, P. (2017). Lost in regulation. Pharmacovigilance. Springer, pp 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen, D.C., Pestotnik, S.L., Evans, R.S., Lloyd, J.F. and Burke, J.P. (1997). Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. Journal of American Medical Association, 1997. 277(4): p. 301–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • DRAP. (2019). Pakistan National Pharmacovigilance Guidelines (Draft). 1 ed. Islamabad, PK: Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan. Available: https://dra.gov.pk/docs/Draft%20Pakistan%20National%20Pharmacovigigilance%20guidlines%204-9-2019.pdf [Accessed February 22 2020].

  • Edwards, I. R. & Biriell, C. (1994). Harmonisation in pharmacovigilance. Drug Safety, 10, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, I. R. & Aronson, J. K. (2000). Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. The Lancet, 356, 1255–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMA. (2003). Post-approval safety data management: definitions and standards for expedited reporting E2D. Published in the Federal Register, 2003. 68(178): p. 53983–53984.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMA. (2005). ICH Topic E 2 E Pharmacovigilance Planning (Pvp). London, UK: European Medicines Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faich, G. A. (1996). US adverse drug reaction surveillance 1989–(1994). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 5, 393–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA. (2005). Good Pharmacovigilance Practices and Pharmacoepidemiologic Assessment. In: RESEARCH, C. F. D. E. A. R. C. F. B. E. A. (ed.). USA: Food and Drug Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • FDA. (2018). FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS): Latest Quarterly Data Files [Online]. USA: Food and Drug Administration. Available: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/questions-and-answers-fdas-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers/fda-adverse-event-reporting-system-faers-latest-quarterly-data-files [Accessed September 15 2019].

  • FDA. (2019a). MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program [Online]. USA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available: https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/default.html [Accessed August 15 2019].

  • FDA. (2019b). MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program [Online]. USA: Food and Drug Administration. Available: https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-and-adverse-event-reporting-program [Accessed September 15 2019].

  • Gibson, B. R., Suh, R. & Tilson, H. (2008). The US drug safety system: role of the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 17, 110–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, S. (2005). Opening Pandora’s pillbox: using modern information tools to improve drug safety. Health Affairs, 24(4), 938–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. (2018). Canada Vigilance Program. 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medeffect-canada/canada-vigilance-program.html [Accessed September 15 2019].

  • Government of Pakistan. (2007). Health Systems Profile-Pakistan [Online]. World Health Organization. Available: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s17305e/s17305e.pdf [Accessed August 30 2019].

  • Government of Pakistan. (2012). Batch J093: The Pathology of Negligence (Report of the Judicial Inquiry Tribunal to Determine the Causes of Deaths of Patients of the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore in (2011)–2012. Punjab, PK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Pakistan. (2016). National Vision 2016–2025 for Coordinated Priority Actions to Address Challenges of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child, Adolescent Health and Nutrition. 2016: Islamabad, PK. p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granas, A. G., Buajordet, M., Stenberg‐Nilsen, H., Harg, P. & Horn, A. M. 2007. Pharmacists’ attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 16, 429–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. F., Mottram, D. R., Rowe, P. H. & Pirmohamed, M. (2001). Attitudes and knowledge of hospital pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting. British Journal Of Clinical Pharmacology, 51, 81–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. A. & Norris, P. (2015). Quantitative Methods in Pharmacy Practice Research. Pharmacy Practice Research Methods. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. and J. Weber, Voluntary systems of adverse reaction reporting, in Medicines: Regulation, Research and Risk, G. JP, Editor. 1992, The Queen’s University: Belfast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadi, M. A., Neoh, C. F., Zin, R. M., Elrggal, M. E. & Cheema, E. (2017). Pharmacovigilance: pharmacists’ perspective on spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Integrated Pharmacy Research & Practice, 6, 91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, K., Koller Doser, A. & Kuhn, M. (1999). Postmarketing safety information: how useful are spontaneous reports? Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 8, S65-S71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heeley, E., Waller, P. & Moseley, J. (2005). Testing and implementing signal impact analysis in a regulatory setting. Drug Safety, 28, 901–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, J., Pinto, L. P., Woods, F., Richens, A. & Routledge, P. (1996). The Welsh Adverse Drug Reactions Scheme: experience of a UK regional monitoring centre. Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews, 15, 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, R., et al., (2018). A qualitative exploration of knowledge, attitudes and practices of hospital pharmacists towards adverse drug reaction reporting system in Lahore, Pakistan. Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 11(1): p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, R., M.A. Hassali, and S.M. Rana, (2019). Evaluation of an educational intervention on physicians’ knowledge about adverse drug reaction reporting system. Journal of Public Health, p. 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, W. (1986). Editor’s introduction and commentary. In: WH, I. (ed.) Monitoring for Drug Safety. Boston: MTP Press Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, W. (1996). Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunac, D.L., M. Harrison-Woolrych, and M.V. Tatley, Pharmacovigilance in New Zealand: the role of the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre in facilitating safer medicines use. The New Zealand Medical Journal (Online), 2008. 121(1283).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B.H. and Corey, P.N. (1998). Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(15), pp.1200–1205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lexchin, J. (2006). Is there still a role for spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174, 191–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., Zhang, S.-M., Chen, H.-T., Fang, S.-P., Yu, X., Liu, D., Shi, L.-Y. & Zeng, F.-D. (2004). Awareness and attitudes of healthcare professionals in Wuhan, China to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Chinese Medical Journal, 117, 856–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, K. P., Lovell, A. T., Butt, H., Fauvel, N. J. & Holdcroft, A. (2006). Adverse effects of neuromuscular blocking agents based on yellow card reporting in the UK: are there differences between males and females? Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 15, 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linger, M. & Martin, J. (2018). Pharmacovigilance and expedited drug approvals. Australian Prescriber, 41, 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcdowell, S. E., Coleman, J. J. & Ferner, R. (2006). Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in risks of adverse reactions to drugs used in cardiovascular medicine. British Medical Journal, 332, 1177–1181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclernon, D. J., Bond, C. M., Hannaford, P. C., Watson, M. C., Lee, A. J., Hazell, L., Avery, A. & Collaboration, Y. C. (2010). Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK. Drug Safety, 33, 775–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • MHRA. (2019). Yellow Card. [Online]. United Kingdom: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Available: https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/monitoringsafety/ [Accessed February 22 2020].

  • Montastruc, J.-L., Sommet, A., Lacroix, I., Olivier, P., Durrieu, G., Damase-Michel, C., Lapeyre-Mestre, M. & Bagheri, H. (2006). Pharmacovigilance for evaluating adverse drug reactions: value, organization, and methods. Joint Bone Spine, 73, 629-632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkeng, L., Cloutier, A.-M., Craig, C., Lelorier, J. & Moride, Y. (2012). Impact of regulatory guidances and drug regulation on risk minimization interventions in drug safety. Drug Safety, 35, 535–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • NZPVC. (2019). CARM [Online]. New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre. Available: https://nzphvc.otago.ac.nz/carm [Accessed August 15 2019].

  • Osborne, C.A., 2010. Adverse drug reactions: investigating to reporting. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(1), p.46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshikoya, K. A. & Awobusuyi, J. O. (2009). Perceptions of doctors to adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. BMC Clinical Pharmacology, 9, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palaian, S. (2018). Pharmacovigilance Practices and Activities: Issues, Challenges, and Future Direction. Social and Administrative Aspects of Pharmacy in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkston, V. & Swain, E. (1998). Management of adverse drug reactions and adverse event data through collection, storage, and retrieval. Detection of New Adverse Drug Reactions, 4, 282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirmohamed, M., James, S., Meakin, S., Green, C., Scott, A.K., Walley, T.J., Farrar, K., Park, B.K. and Breckenridge, A.M. (2004). Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. British Medical Journal, 329(7456), pp.15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Praus, M., Schindel, F., Fescharek, R. and Schwarz, S., 1993. Alert systems for post‐marketing surveillance of adverse drug reactions. Statistics in Medicine, 12(24), pp.2383–2393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psaty, B.M., Furberg, C.D., Ray, W.A. and Weiss, N.S., 2004. Potential for conflict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. Journal of American Medical Association, 292(21), pp.2622–2631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, M., J. Pandit, and G. Parthasarathi. (2003) Adverse drug reactions in a south Indian hospital—their severity and cost involved. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 12(8): p. 687–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 304–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfes, L., et al., (2014). Important information regarding reporting of adverse drug reactions: a qualitative study. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 22(3): p. 231–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneeweiss, S., Hasford, J., Göttler, M., Hoffmann, A., Riethling, A.K. and Avorn, J. (2002). Admissions caused by adverse drug events to internal medicine and emergency departments in hospitals: a longitudinal population-based study. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 58(4), pp.285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamim, S., Sharib, S. M., Malhi, S. M., Muntaha, S.-U., Raza, H., Ata, S., Farooq, A. S. & Hussain, M. (2016). Adverse drug reactions (ADRS) reporting: awareness and reasons of under-reporting among health care professionals, a challenge for pharmacists. Springer Plus, 5, 1778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl, M., Lindquist, M., Edwards, I. & Brown, E. (2004). Introducing triage logic as a new strategy for the detection of signals in the WHO Drug Monitoring Database. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13, 355–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, T. & Brynner, R. (2009). Dark remedy: the impact of thalidomide and its revival as a vital medicine, Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom, B. L. (2019). What is pharmacoepidemiology? In: Strom, B. L. (Ed.), Pharmacoepidemiology. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, C., Ji, H. & Su, Y. (2010). Hospital pharmacists’ knowledge and opinions regarding adverse drug reaction reporting in Northern China. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 19, 217–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultana, J., Cutroneo, P. & Trifirò, G. (2013). Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, 4, S73.

    Google Scholar 

  • TGA. (2015). Medicines and vaccines post-market vigilance - statistics for (2015). Australia: Therapeutic Goods Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • TGA. (2017). Reporting problems [Online]. Australia: Therapeutic Goods Administration. Available: https://www.tga.gov.au/reporting-problems [Accessed September 15 2019].

  • Toklu, H. Z. & Uysal, M. K. (2008). The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharmacy World & Science, 30, 556–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • UMC. (2017a). What happens to reports of problems with medicines? Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available from: https://www.who-umc.org/safer-use-of-medicines/safer-use-of-medicines-the-basics/what-happens-to-reports [Accessed December 12 2019].

  • UMC. (2017b). Vigiflow. [Online]. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. [Avaialble]: https://www.who-umc.org/globalpharmacovigilance/vigiflow/. [Accessed December 25 2019].

  • UMC. (2018a). The story of UMC and the WHO Program [Online]. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available: https://www.whoumc.org/global-pharmacovigilance/who-program/the-story-of-umc-and-thewho-program/ [Accessed September 15 2019].

  • UMC. (2018b). Communication in pharmacovigilance [Online]. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available: https://www.whoumc.org/globalpharmacovigilance/communicationinpharmacovigilance/patient-centered-communications [Accessed December 15 2019].

  • UMC. (2019a). Members of the WHO Program for International Drug Monitoring [Online]. Geneva: Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available: https://www.who-umc.org/global-pharmacovigilance/members/whoprogram-members/ [Accessed January 15 2020].

  • UMC. (2019b). Detecting signals [Online]. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Available: https://www.who-umc.org/research-scientificdevelopment/signal-detection/ [Accessed January 12 2020].

  • USAID (2017). National Guideline on the Pharmacovigilance System in Bangladesh. Arlington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Grootheest, K., Olsson, S., Couper, M. & De Jong‐Van Den Berg, L. (2004). Pharmacists’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions in an international perspective. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 13, 457–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, P. C., Coulson, R. A. & Wood, S. M. (1996). Regulatory pharmacovigilance in the United Kingdom: current principles and practice. Pharmacoepidemiology And Drug Safety, 5, 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, P. C. & Lee, E. H. (1999). Responding to drug safety issues. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 8, 535–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, P., Heeley, E. & Moseley, J. (2005). Impact analysis of signals detected from spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting data. Drug Safety, 28, 843–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, P. C. (2006). Making the most of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 98, 320–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, P. & Harrison-Woolrych, M. (2010). An introduction to pharmacovigilance, Wiley Online Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wazir, H. (2017). DRAP to introduce regulations for post-marketing surveillance of drugs. Pakistan Today. Available: https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/08/20/drap-to-introduce-regulations-for-post-marketing-surveillance-of-drugs/ [Accessed February 21 2020].

  • White, T. J., Arakelian, A. & RHO, J. P. (1999). Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics, 15, 445–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWiktorowicz, M., Lexchin, J., Moscou, K., Silversides, A. and Eggertson, L., 2010. Keeping an eye on prescription drugs, keeping Canadians safe. Toronto: Health Council of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2002). The Importance of Pharmacovigilance – Safety Monitoring of Medicinal Products [Online]. United Kingdom: World Health Organization. Available: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4893e/ [Accessed February 22 2020].

  • WHO. (2013). Deadly medicines contamination in Pakistan [Online]. World Health Organization. Available: http://www.who.int/features/(2013)/pakistan_medicine_safety/en/ [Accessed August 12 2019].

  • WHO. (2014). Pharmacovigilance: ensuring the safe use of medicines. Geneva. Avaialble: https://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s6164e/s6164e.pdf [Accessed February 22 2020].

  • WHO. (2015). Essential medicines and health products [Online]. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Available: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/PV_fast_facts/en/ [Accessed January 30 2020].

  • WHO. (2019a). Annual Meeting of Representatives of National Pharmacovigilance Centres participating in the WHO Program for International Drug Monitoring [Online]. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available: https://www.who.int/medicines/regulation/medicines-safety/npvcmeeting/en/ [Accessed February 12 2020].

  • WHO. (2019b). Essential medicines and health products: Adverse drug reactions monitoring [Online]. World Health Organization. Available: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/advdrugreactions/en/ [Accessed December 12 2019].

  • Wu, T.Y., Jen, M.H., Bottle, A., Molokhia, M., Aylin, P., Bell, D. and Majeed, A., 2010. Ten-year trends in hospital admissions for adverse drug reactions in England 1999–2009. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 103(6), pp.239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, L., Harrison‐Woolrych, M. and Coulter, D.M., 2003. Use of the New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme to study the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine device (Mirena). Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 12(5), pp.371–377.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Penang, Malaysia

    Rabia Hussain & Mohamed Azmi Hassali

  2. Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Research, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Authors
  1. Rabia Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamed Azmi Hassali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rabia Hussain .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice Research, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hussain, R., Hassali, M.A., Babar, ZUD. (2020). Medicines Safety in the Globalized Context. In: Babar, ZUD. (eds) Global Pharmaceutical Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2724-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2724-1_1

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2723-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2724-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation