See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267271524

Pharmacovigilance and its importance in drug regulation: An Overview

Article  in  Der Pharmacia Lettre · March 2011

CITATIONS READS

4 10,111

5 authors, including:

Fasalu Rahiman
MES Academy of medical science
31 PUBLICATIONS   146 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fasalu Rahiman on 24 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com

Scholars Research Library

Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2): 165-179
(http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html)

ISSN 0975-5071
USA CODEN: DPLEB4

Pharmacovigilance and its importance in drug regulation: An

Overview

M. Rupesh Kumar, Surendra Bodhanapu* , T. Tamizh Mani, P. Phaneendra and O.M.

Fasalu Rahiman

Department of Pharmacology, Bharathi College of Pharmacy, Bharathinagara, Maddur Tq,

Mandya Dist., Karnataka, India
______________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

The aim of pharmacovigilance is to protect public health by identifying, evaluating and

minimizing safety issues to ensure that the overall benefits of medicines outweigh the risks.
However, the recent withdrawal from the market of certain medicines has focused attention on
pharmacovigilance approaches; raised concerns about improving the existing
pharmacovigilance framework; and highlighted the need to ensure consistency among
international regulations governing the reporting of side effects (“Adverse Drug Reactions” -
ADRs). In drug regulation problems related to the safety and quality of drugs exists in many
places. Effective drug regulation is required to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs,
as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the drug information available to the public.
Regulation of drugs encompasses a variety of functions like licensing, inspection of
manufacturing facilities and distribution channels, product assessment and registration, adverse
drug reaction (ADR) monitoring, QC, control of drug promotion and advertising, and control of
clinical drug trials.

Keywords: Pharmacovigilance, Drug regulation, Adverse Drug Reactions, Safety, Efficacy.

______________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

What is Pharmacovigilance?
WHO defines pharmacovigilance as the science and activities relating to the detection,
assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any other medicine-related
problem.

165
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
Brief history of Pharmacovigilance in India
Even though pharmacovigilance is still in its infancy, it is not new to India. It was not until 1986
that a formal adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring system consisting of 12 regional centers,
each covering a population of 50 million, was proposed for India [1]. However, nothing much
happened until a decade later when in 1997, India joined the World Health Organization (WHO)
Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Programme based in Uppsala, Sweden. Three centers for
ADR monitoring were identified, mainly based in teaching hospitals: a National
Pharmacovigilance Centre located in the Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and two WHO special centers in Mumbai (KEM
Hospital) and Aligarh (JLN Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University). These centers were to report
ADRs to the drug regulatory authority of India. The major role of these centers was to monitor
ADRs to medicines marketed in India. This attempt was unsuccessful and hence, again from the
1st of January 2005, the WHO-sponsored and World Bank-funded National Pharmacovigilance
Program for India was made operational [2]. The National Pharmacovigilance Program
established in January 2005, was to be overseen by the National Pharmacovigilance Advisory
Committee based in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), New Delhi.
Two zonal centers-the South-West zonal centre (located in the Department of Clinical
Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai) and the North-East zonal
centre (located in the Department of Pharmacology, AIIMS, New Delhi), were to collate
information from all over the country and send it to the Committee as well as to the Uppsala
Monitoring centre in Sweden. Three regional centers would report to the Mumbai center and two
to the New Delhi one. Each regional center in turn would have several peripheral centers
reporting to it. Presently there are 24 peripheral centers.

The science as it is today had to go through various milestones to reach what it is today. Some of
the issues which are important in the historical point of view are: [3]

• Elixir of Sulphanilamide (1937) which resulted in poisoning in children. It was identified that it
was a formulation defect which led to improvements in Pharmaceutical regulation.
• Thalidomide tragedy (1961) which resulted in phocomelia (absence of limbs) in the children of
mothers who took this apparently ‘safe drug’, led to National and international collections of
ADR reports and resulted in the introduction of yellow card system initiated in the UK in 1964.

• Ethnic susceptibility and drug use issues were raised and early work on Pharmacogenetics
began after new clinical syndrome SMON (Sub acute myelo optic neuropathy) reported
following use of Clioquinol(1969).

• Realization that spontaneous reporting will not pick up ‘events’ that are not easily recognized
as caused by drugs after the new clinical syndrome, oculomucocutaneous reaction with the use of
Practolol (1975) recognized by UK experts led to Prescription event monitoring(PEM).

• One of the most important milestones is the establishment of WHO collaborating center for
Drug Monitoring, which is called the Uppsala Monitoring Center (UMC), in 1978, which led to
National collaboration enhanced under the WHO programme. This also led to standardizing
Adverse Drug Reaction Terminology (ART), WHO-DD (World Health Organization Drug
Dictionary) etc., which are updated periodically.
166
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________

• Some of the important issues which followed were ICH guidelines, European
Pharmacovigilance,US, EU and Japan work on harmonized drug regulation, ADR Signal
analysis project etc., etc.,

The above issues are recommended for drug safety and monitoring in drug regulation, i.e.
Pharmacovigilance plays an important role in drug regulation in medicine world.

Pharmacovigilance in drug regulation

Pharmacovigilance and all drug safety issues are relevant for everyone whose life is touched in
any way by medical interventions. Robust drug regulatory arrangements provide the foundation
for a national ethos of drug safety, and for public confidence in medicines. The issues, with
which drug regulatory authorities have to contend besides the approval of new medicines,
include:
• clinical trials
• safety of complementary and traditional medicines, vaccines and biological medicines
• Developing lines of communication between all parties with an interest in drug safety and
ensuring that they are open and able to function efficiently, particularly at times of crisis.

Pharmacovigilance programmes need strong links with regulators to ensure that authorities are
well briefed on safety issues in everyday practice that may be relevant to future regulatory
action. Regulators understand that pharmacovigilance plays a specialized and pivotal role in
ensuring ongoing safety of medicinal products. Pharmacovigilance programmes need to be
adequately supported to achieve their objectives.

A new medicine must pass three hurdles before its approval by the national drug regulatory
authority. Sufficient evidence is required to show the new drug to be

• Of good quality,
• Effective, and
• Safe for the purpose or purposes for which it is proposed.

Whereas the first two criteria must be met before any consideration can be given to approval, the
issue of safety is less certain. Safety is not absolute, and it can be judged only in relation to
efficacy, requiring judgement on the part of the regulators in deciding on acceptable limits of
safety. There is a possibility that rare yet serious adverse events (such as those occurring with a
frequency of, say, and one in five thousand) will not be detected in the pre-registration
development of the drug. For example, fatal blood dyscrasia occurring in 1 in 5,000 patients
treated with a new drug is only likely to be recognized after 15,000 patients have been treated
and observed, provided that the background incidence of such a reaction is zero or a causal
association with the drug is clear.

Clinical trial regulation

In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of clinical trials in developed
and developing countries. Clinical trials in the United States of America alone nearly doubled

167
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
between 1990 and 1998[4]. With sequencing of the human genome, clinical research in potential
new drug therapies is likely to increase even further.

There is also a growing alliance between academia and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology
industries. This has given rise to serious and widespread concern over ethical and scientific
issues such as: [5-8]

• The potential for conflict of interest

• Unethical patient recruitment practices
• Inadequacy of informed consent
• lack of capacity to ensure on-going monitoring of clinical trials and adherence to principles of
sound and ethical clinical practice
• Poor reporting and management of adverse events.

For drug regulators, the changing trends over recent years in the conduct of clinical trials present
special and urgent challenges, particularly in ensuring that the rights and health of patients and
their communities are protected. In their approval of clinical trials, regulatory bodies look at
safety and efficacy of new products under investigation. They must also pay attention to the
general standards of care and safety of study subjects, in conjunction with the appropriate
institutional review boards (IRBs). Medicines those are required for diseases such as
tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS and meningococcus, meningitis, and those which may have a
questionable or uncertain effectiveness - safety profile, require careful surveillance when first
introduced on a large scale into communities [9].

The increasing complexity of clinical trials presents further challenges to regulators [10]. Study
designs often require large cohorts of participants. In many instances trials are carried out at
various sites in several countries. Local ethics committees and drug regulators are not always
aware of patients’ and investigators’ experiences at other international sites. Responsibility for
ensuring proper conduct of the clinical trial may, in such circumstances, be divided between the
parties. Information requested by ethics committees and regulators may be difficult to obtain in a
short time. Regulators and ethics committees do not always have the capacity to carry out these
functions effectively. This may have serious implications for the safety of patients.

Safety monitoring during clinical trials is now recognized as one of the major concerns for new
drug development. This is currently being addressed by a CIOMS working group. Three main
topics are being addressed:

1) the collection of adverse experience information

2) assessment/monitoring of clinical data
3) Reporting/communication of clinical data.

A standardized reporting system for safety concerns arising during clinical trials might serve as a
helpful tool for regulatory agencies, and for ethics committees (institutional review boards),
provided there were full exchange of information between them and the investigators and
sponsors. Expedited electronic submission of safety reports in ICH countries has facilitated the
reporting process to some extent; however, routine review of safety information requires
168
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
considerable resources, expertise, support and commitment from those involved. Once research
into new drugs is in the post-marketing stage (Phase IV studies) safety may be monitored to
comply with the conditions of registration, particularly when there are unresolved concerns. This
may lead to improved and more rapid changes in labelling or even withdrawal of a new drug
from the market [11]. Routine application of principles of good clinical practice that ensure
patient safety and strict compliance with prescribed regulatory requirements would substantially
improve standards of clinical trials [12].

Post-marketing safety monitoring

It is now generally accepted that part of the process of evaluating drug safety needs to happen in
the post-marketing (approval) phase, if important innovations are not to be lost in an unduly
restrictive regulatory net. Judgement as to whether and how this might happen lies with the
regulators. The stronger the national system of pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting, the more
likely it is that reasonable regulatory decisions will be made for the early release of new drugs
with the promise of therapeutic advances. Legislation governing the regulatory process in most
countries allows for conditions to be placed on approvals, such as a requirement that there should
be detailed pharmacovigilance in the early years after a drug’s release. Careful safety monitoring
is not confined, however, to new drugs or to significant therapeutic advances. It has an important
role to play in the introduction of generic medicines, and in review of the safety profile of older
medicines already available, where new safety issues may have arisen. While spontaneous
reporting remains a cornerstone of pharmacovigilance in the regulatory environment, and is
indispensable for signal detection, the need for more active surveillance has also become
increasingly clear. Without information on utilization and on the extent of consumption,
spontaneous reports do not make it possible to determine the frequency of an ADR attributable to
a product, or its safety in relation to a comparator [13]. More systematic and robust
epidemiological methods that take into account the limitations of spontaneous reporting are
required to address these important safety questions. They need to be incorporated into post-
marketing surveillance programmes. There are other aspects of drug safety that have been rather
neglected until now, which should be included in monitoring latent and long-term effects of
medicines.

These include:
• detection of drug interactions
• measuring the environmental burden of medicines used in large populations
• assessing the contribution of ‘inactive’ ingredients (excipients) to the safety profile
• systems for comparing safety profiles of similar medicines
• Surveillance of the adverse effects on human health of drug residues in animals, e.g. antibiotics
and hormones.

A more difficult question is whether pharmacovigilance has resulted in inappropriate removal

from the market of potentially useful medicines as a result of misplaced fears or false signals.
The CIOMS report [14] on benefit-risk assessment of medicines after marketing has contributed
to a more systematic approach to determining the merit of available medicines. Systematic
medical and prescription record linkage, with drug utilization studies, would contribute to greater
accuracy. This is a responsibility that falls outside the strict traditional terms of reference of
national pharmacovigilance centers.
169
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
Promotional activities
The safety of medicines in the development stage is increasingly affected by the constraints
placed by sponsors on the study plan, laboratory programme and the open sharing of information
as the research agenda is negotiated with clinical collaborators [15]. There is growing public
concerns that close collaboration between academia and the pharmaceutical industry may
adversely affect medical practice and clinical research [4, 16 & 17]. A worrying development for
drug safety is ‘direct to consumer’ advertizing by pharmaceutical manufacturers, other sellers of
medicines and parties with a vested interest. Spending on this activity has doubled in the USA
over the past four years [6]. While it may improve patients’ understanding and is in keeping with
the need to improve access to drug information, lack of reliability and accuracy may compromise
patient care and safety. Even where direct advertizing of prescription medicines to consumers is
illegal, the Internet provides a medium that makes communication possible across borders. This
may make national regulations about advertizing ineffective. Websites now make it possible to
buy and sell prescription drugs such as benzodiazepines without controls. These developments in
communication all have an impact on the safety of medicine [18].

All these issues suggest the need for more thorough monitoring of drug safety and scrutiny of
advertizing. Resources and expertise are necessary to ensure that promotional materials contain
accurate and balanced information, and that practices are ethical. Self-regulation by industry is
unlikely to be sufficient in many countries. Regional or international collaboration in the
implementation of a regulatory code of practice for advertizing medicinal products, overseen by
an impartial advisory body, would help in this regard [19]. Misrepresentation and lack of full
disclosure may have equally important and potentially serious safety implications. A joint
editorial, which outlines the rationale for this policy, states that this action is a response to the
industry’s increasingly tight control over research, results and, in many cases, whether and how
results are made public [20].

International harmonization of drug regulatory requirements

Harmonization of various elements of drug regulatory activities has been undertaken in the last
decade by various intergovernmental organizations at regional and inter-regional levels.
Harmonization activities related to drug regulation are being pursued in all WHO regions. The
ICH initiative, which started in 1990, is an inter-regional venture covering seventeen high-
income countries. The guidelines produced by these groups of specialists drawn from the
regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies of ICH members represent the latest
thinking and are having an impact on all countries [21, 22]. WHO has observer status in all ICH
activities. Discussions are in progress to consider the implications of the ICH process and
globalization of its guidelines. This includes describing the benefits of the process and explaining
concerns about extending its influence to non-ICH countries. If ICH moves into the field of
pharmacovigilance, the group should be encouraged to capitalize on the work already carried out
by WHO in this area. All ICH countries should be encouraged to participate more actively in the
WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring.

Promoting communication in the field of drug safety

Society has a great concern about coping with the dangers of modern life. Medicinal products are
among the technological advances that have provided society with great benefits and added risks.
Knowledge of the public perception of these risks is essential if they are to be managed
170
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
effectively. How safe is safe enough? Which risks are acceptable? These are two critical
questions that providers of medicines need to consider when communicating with patients and
the public. Recognizing that there is variance between expert views of risk and public perception,
there is a need to analyse and understand the differences much more thoroughly. It is not
sufficient for the experts to be satisfied with the evidence for safety. The pharmaceutical
industry, governments and healthcare providers must build public trust through effective risk
communications. This can be achieved only once the public mindset is examined and understood
[23, 24].

Some regulatory authorities are increasing the transparency with which they conduct their
affairs. However, many authorities continue to be constrained by real or notional secrecy
provisions, intended to protect the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The problem with secrecy is that it creates an environment of distrust and misunderstanding. It is
now expected of regulators that they should deal with drug regulation, including drug safety
issues, with a new commitment to openness, including patients and their representatives in the
process. In this regard, considerable progress has been made in many countries, notably in the
regulation of drugs for HIV/AIDS and cancer.

There has been a tendency for drug safety issues to be dealt with in a way that protects the
interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers in the first instance [25]. National pharmacovigilance
centers, provided they have the necessary expertise and resources, are especially well placed to
collect, evaluate and make recommendations on drug safety, free of other constraining
influences. The greatest challenge for National Centers, as it is for drug regulatory authorities, is
to promote and maintain effective and open communication of information regarding the benefit,
harm, effectiveness and risk of medicines, including the uncertainty of knowledge in this area,
with the public and the health professions. The 1998 Erice Declaration on Communicating Drug
Safety Information called for a united effort on the part of all interested parties in establishing a
new culture of transparency, equity and accountability in the communication of drug safety
information. Much has already been accomplished internationally in achieving this. Since Erice,
many regulatory authorities have extended their communication activities, developed websites
and newsletters, and have actively engaged with the media to provide the public with updated
safety information.

Reports received from the National AIDS Programme (Pharmacovigilance Centre

Suriname) [26]
Adverse drug reactions from the National AIDS Programme in September 2006 to complete the
data collected the ADRs reported in the Programme retrospectively to 2002. The primary therapy
is Zidovudine (AZT) – Lamivudine (3TC) – Nevirapine (NVP). Most of the patients treated
receive this combination. Between 2002 and 2008, more than a thousand patients received
ARVs. The reported ADRs are almost equally distributed between men (64) and women (68).
132 ADRs as a consequence of ARVs, are reported between 2002 and 2008 to the National
AIDS Programme are collected. 110 of these 132 ADRs resulted in drug substitution, 17 led to
other actions (reduction of doses, additional medication for relieve of the adverse drug reaction)
and 5 times the ADR resulted in discontinuation of the medicines.

171
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
In the years between 2002 and 2008, adverse drug reactions led to at least 79 referrals to medical
specialists and to 45 hospitalizations. For 19 of 45 hospitalizations, Ziduvudine was the
immediate cause, among which 15 for anaemia and 2 for anaemia in combination with
leucopenia.

Table 1: Reported adverse drug reactions by ARV from 2002 to 2009

Anti retroviral Number of toxicities %

Abacavir 3 2.3
Zidovudine 63 47.7
Stavudine 21 15.9
Didanosine 1 0.7
Efavirenz 4 3.0
Indinavir 7 5.3
Lopinavir 2 1.5
Nelfinavir 1 0.8
Nevirapine 29 22.0
Saquinavir 1 0.8
Total 132 100

Figure 1: ADRs resulting in hospitalization

Communication with health professionals

A further strategy for integrating pharmacovigilance into clinical practice is the creation of open
lines of communication and broader collaboration between health professionals and National
Centres. For this to happen, National or regional centres need to be situated so that two-way
communication between health practitioners and professional staff of the centre is easy. Drug
information and poison centres are ideal locations for this purpose, since many poisoning reports
and drug information queries are in fact ADRs [27].

172
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
Academic departments and university hospitals have proved effective places for national and
regional pharmacovigilance centres for a number of reasons.

These include the following:

(i) Pharmacovigilance can readily be linked with experimental and clinical pharmacology, and
epidemiology in that environment
(ii) The location makes peer review of adverse reaction reports easier and more efficient, and it
provides ready access to hospital specialists in university departments. From such a base, an
advisory panel for the National Centre with scientific and medical experts can be created
(iii)The information obtained from spontaneous reports can be incorporated into undergraduate
and postgraduate teaching in the health sciences
(iv) Health professionals are likely to feel confident in reporting problems and therapeutic
dilemmas to an academic unit with which they are familiar and that they know will consider their
reports thoroughly and expertly
(v) Effective medical education strategies such as academic detailing [28], feedback on
individual cases, reminders and soliciting the support of acknowledged experts are most readily
achievable under these circumstances [29].

Risk and crisis management

The importance of an efficient system for dealing with drug safety risks and crises has become
increasingly evident in recent years. Drug safety issues tend rapidly to take on international
significance. The speed with which information spreads in the modern world means that drug
safety concerns are no longer confined to individual countries. Often the media and general
public are informed at the same time as, or even before, the national regulatory authority.

Many national authorities have identified the need for developing an organizational plan for
managing risks and for communication and action during crises [30]. Regulators themselves
often react under duress in a drug safety crisis within a legislative or administrative framework
that is inadequate or excessively restrictive. There should be clear yet flexible operating
procedures so that their response is not delayed, unnecessarily complicated, or unduly cautious
(undue caution may result in removal of a product from the market even when there may be no
justification and a more thoughtful and less drastic response would be appropriate). In such
circumstances, the greater the disparity in safety information between the pre-registration
evaluation and the real situation in practice, the greater is the likelihood that the regulatory
response will be inappropriate. When crises arise, the regulatory authority has powers to suspend
registration, impose special conditions, or severely restrict use to certain patients or prescribers.

Pharmacovigilance and the national drug regulatory authority

The limitations of pre-marketing drug safety data are well-recognized [31]. They are aggravated
by increasing pressure on drug regulators from the pharmaceutical industry to shorten the review
time for new medicines. Registration approval of a new drug is likely to be followed by robust
marketing and rapid exposures of thousands even millions of patients to it[32]. The implications
for drug safety of this evolving situation need to be addressed.

Pharmacovigilance has become an essential component of drug regulation[33]. For the

foreseeable future in developing countries, this is likely to take the conventional form of
173
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
spontaneous monitoring, even though it is a far from perfect system. Within the national drug
regulatory authority post-marketing surveillance is normally understood to serve a distinct
function, separate from the process of evaluation and approval of new medicines. Post-marketing
surveillance draws on its own special sources of information, infrastructure and expertise,
although there is good reason for these systems and resources to be shared with other disciplines.
For example, it is necessary that in the proper conduct of pharmacovigilance there should be
access to the information on which the original determination of risk and harm was made. Pre-
registration files, including the advice and opinions of the original evaluators of the data, are
required if a balanced and clinically relevant decision is to be made. In many countries
pharmacovigilance and drug regulatory approvals are linked by an ADR advisory committee
appointed by, and directly reporting to, the national regulatory authority [34, 35]. The committee
consists, amongst others, of independent experts in clinical medicine, epidemiology, paediatrics,
toxicology and clinical pharmacology. Such an arrangement inspires confidence amongst health
personnel and it can be expected to make a substantial contribution to public health.

Herbal and Traditional Medicines

The use of herbal and traditional medicines raises concerns in relation to their safety [36, 37].
There is wide misconception that ‘natural’ means ‘safe’. There is the common belief that long
use of a medicine, based on tradition, assures both its efficacy and safety. There are examples of
traditional and herbal medicines being adulterated or contaminated with allopathic medicines,
chemicals such as corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and heavy metals.
Many traditional medicines are manufactured for global use and they have moved beyond the
traditional and cultural framework for which they were originally intended. Self-medication
further aggravates the risk to patients. When traditional and herbal medicines are used in
conjunction with other medicines there is the potential of serious adverse drug interactions.

As with other products intended for human use (medicines, dietary supplements and foods),
herbal medicines should be incorporated within a regulatory framework. These products should
be governed by standards of safety, quality and efficacy that are equivalent to those required for
other pharmaceutical products. The regulatory status of herbal products differs significantly from
country to country. Currently less than 70 countries regulate herbal medicines and few countries
have systems in place for the regulation of traditional health practitioners. These disparities in
regulation between countries have serious implications for international access to and
distribution of such products. For instance, in one country a herbal product may be obtainable
only on prescription and from an authorized pharmacy, whereas in another country, it may be
obtainable from a health food shop, or even, as has become common practice, by mail order or
Internet. For all these reasons, inclusion of herbal and traditional medicines in national
pharmacovigilance programmes has become important and inevitable. Healthcare providers,
including traditional health practitioners, regulators, manufacturers and the public share a
responsibility for their informed and safe use. The World Health Organization has produced
guidelines for assessment of the safety, efficacy and quality of herbal medicines [38].

New systematic approaches for monitoring the safety of plant-derived medicinal products are
being developed [39]. A number of national pharmacovigilance centres are now monitoring the
safety of traditional medicines. For that to succeed, the collaboration and support of consumers,

174
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
traditional health practitioners, providers of traditional and herbal medicines and other experts is
necessary.

Vaccines and biological medicines

For several reasons, vaccines and biologicals require modified systems of safety monitoring.
They are often administered to healthy children. This applies particularly to vaccines used within
a national immunization programme. In many countries, those exposed to a particular vaccine
represent the entire birth cohort and therefore a sizeable part of the entire population. People’s
expectations of safety are high, and they are reluctant to countenance even a small risk of
adverse events.

It is essential that there should be adequate safety surveillance supporting immunization

programmes. The skills and infrastructure to deal with genuine adverse events are essential in
preventing or managing misplaced fear caused by false or unproven signals from patients and
health workers that might adversely affect immunization cover. For example, concerns about the
safety of whole-cell Pertussis resulted in dramatic reductions in vaccines coverage and a
resurgence of Pertussis in many countries [40].

The difficulties in monitoring and dealing with vaccine safety are complicated by the problems
inherent in determining the causal link between an adverse event following immunization and a
vaccine [41, 42]. For example, information on dechallenge and rechallenge is often missing, and
vaccines are given to most of the country’s birth cohort at an age when coincidental disease is
likely. Several vaccines are likely to be administered concurrently. However, the responsibility
of the regulatory authority is by no means limited to the safety of vaccines used in immunization
programmes. The efficient regulation of these products is crucial in order to avoid potential harm
to the public as a result of substandard manufacture or improper transportation and storage of
imported vaccines and biologicals.

In recent years, the safety of biological products and blood products has come under public
scrutiny [43]. Concerns about the safety of medicinal products of animal origin have been raised
in connection with variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (vCJD), and with contamination of blood
and blood products by infectious organisms such as HIV and hepatitis B [44]. The quality of
screening and sterilization procedures and appropriate selection of donors are linked to the risks
of contamination. Such safety issues related to the use of plasma-derived medicinal products
should fall under the aegis of pharmacovigilance programmes. For that to happen,
pharmacovigilance centres would have to consider the special issues related to safety of these
products. New vaccines for pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria are in the later
phases of development. Clinical trials in large patient populations are being considered for
testing the efficacy and safety of these vaccines. Special ethical, legal and regulatory challenges
are raised in the conduct of such clinical trials, especially the implications vaccines may have for
the epidemiology of disease and the possible direct and indirect risks of harm associated with the
introduction of vaccines into large communities.

Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars
Unlike traditional generic pharmaceuticals, biosimilars (also called ‘follow-on
biopharmaceuticals’ in the USA) aim to copy a complex recombinant, three dimensional protein
175
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
structure with high molecular weight. Small changes in the manufacturing process can alter the
product’s effect and safety. According to the guidelines of the European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal products (EMEA), extensive comparability testing will be required to
demonstrate that the biosimilar has a comparable profile in terms of quality, safety and efficacy
as the reference product. Various analytical assays are available to compare physicochemical and
biological properties between production batches of a potentially similar biopharmaceutical
(comparability) and in comparison with a reference product (similarity). It is important to
recognize the limits of existing assays so that the results can be accurately interpreted for market
authorization. Clinical trials and post-authorization pharmacovigilance are essential to guarantee
the product’s safety and efficacy over time. Pharmacovigilance, as part of a comprehensive risk
management programme, will need to include regular testing for consistent manufacturing of the
drug.

As patents of first generation biopharmaceuticals derived from recombinant DNA are expiring,
the development of ‘biosimilars’ is increasing. Follow-on biopharmaceuticals aim to copy
complex recombinant, three-dimensional proteins with high molecular weight. Their market
authorization procedure cannot be based on traditional generics of pharmaceuticals, as the
activities of biopharmaceuticals depend on a multitude of factors [45, 46].

Guaranteeing consistency in the production of these agents has already proved difficult [47].
Incidences such as the increased occurrence of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) cases in 1998
demonstrated how one small change in the manufacturing process can alter the product’s
characteristics [48]. Such complexity means that requirements for marketing authorization of
biosimilar products cannot be the same as for lowmolecular weight generic drugs. Therefore,
preliminary guidelines for pre- and postmarket authorization of biosimilar products from the
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) demand extensive testing to
ensure that the biosimilar has a similar quality, safety and efficacy profile as its reference product
[49]. Various analytical tests are available to analyse the physicochemical properties (such as
weight, density and stability) and biological properties (such as activity and immunogenicity) of
biosimilars. These assays are necessary to test the similarity and comparability of a biosimilar
against the innovator drug, regulations and the safe use of biosimilars in practice.

Although close Pharmacovigilance is a voluntary post-marketing process, it will be in the interest

of the manufacturer to guarantee the quality, safety and efficacy of the biosimilar over time. The
EMEA guidelines state that a comprehensive pharmacovigilance plan should be sent to the
authorities together with the data package and such a plan should be established at the time of
approval of the product [50]. The manufacturing process must be carefully monitored to ensure
comparability between production batches. If a difference in the manufactured product is
detected, additional investigations may be necessary, which may include clinical proof of
unchanged safety and efficacy profile. It will also be essential to define ‘who’ and ‘when’ at the
right place and time to do ‘what’ and ‘how’. This is especially important for the risk
management component of the programme that needs to guarantee immediate reaction in case of
rising numbers of patient disorders with suspected relation to the biosimilar product.

WHO and other international agencies, nongovernmental organizations and donor agencies
provide support for countries to supplement national efforts. However, despite the efforts made,
176
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
less than 20% of WHO Member States are thought to have a well developed drug regulation
system. Those which do are industrialized countries. Of the remaining Member States, about
50% implement drug regulation at varying levels of development and operational capacity. The
remaining 30% either have no DRA in place, or have only a very limited capacity which barely
functions at all [51]. WHO has never undertaken a systematic assessment to identify the reasons
for ineffective drug regulation and determine why so few Member States have succeeded in
establishing effective drug regulation. Guaranteeing the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs
available to the public is the main goal of drug regulation, and encompasses a variety of
functions. Key functions include licensing of premises, persons and practices; inspection of
manufacturing facilities and distribution channels; product assessment and registration
(marketing authorization); adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring; QC; control of drug
promotion and advertising. Each of these functions targets a different aspect of pharmaceutical
activities, but all of them must be undertaken simultaneously to ensure effective consumer
protection.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion Pharmacovigilance plays an important role in drug regulation for protect public health by
identifying, evaluating and minimizing safety issues to ensure that the overall benefits of
medicines outweigh the risks. That is to monitoring the post marketing surveillance, drug safety,
efficacy and quality of drugs, as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the drug information
available to the public for to reduce the adverse drug reactions. The limitations of pre-marketing
drug safety data are well-recognized. Pharmacovigilance and the national drug regulatory
authorities are aggravated by increasing pressure on drug regulators from the pharmaceutical
industry to shorten the review time for new medicines. Registration approval of a new drug is
likely to be followed by robust marketing and rapid exposures of thousands even millions of
patients to it. The implications for drug safety of this evolving situation need to be addressed.
Pharmacovigilance has become an essential component of drug regulation. For the foreseeable
future in developing countries, this is likely to take the conventional form of spontaneous
monitoring, even though it is a far from perfect system. Many developing countries do not have
rudimentary systems in place for the purpose, and even where pharmacovigilance systems do
exist, active support and participation among health professionals, regulators and administrators
is likely to be lacking. Underreporting of ADRs by healthcare professionals remains a major
problem in all countries.

REFERENCES

[1] R.D. Kulkarni; Med Toxicol., 1986, 1, 110-3.

[2] Protocol for National Pharmacovigilance Program, CDSCO, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of India, November 2004.
[3] www.edocfind.com/en/ebook/pharmacovigilance%20in%20drug%20regulation-1.html
[4] J.B. Martin, D.L. Kasper, New England J. Med., 2000, 343 (22), 1646-9.
[5] Editorial, Safeguarding participants in clinical trials, Lancet, 2000, 355 (9222), 2177.
[6] M. Angell, New England J. Med., 2000, 342(20), 1516-8.
[7] M. Angell, New England J. Med., 2000, 342 (13), 967-969.
[8] J.P.A. Ioannidis, J.Lau, J. the American Medical Association, 2001, 285 (4), 437-443.
177
Scholar Research Library
Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
[9] N.J. White, Proceedings of the XXVIIth CIOMS Conference, Geneva, Switzerland 14-15
Sep. 1993, Z. Bankowski, J.F. Dunne (eds) CIOMS, Geneva 1994, 126 –135.
[10] D. Shalala, New England J. Med., 2000, 343(11), 808-810.
[11] http://www.citizen.org/hrg/Publications/1520.htm
[12] A fifth amendment for the Declaration of Helsinki, Lancet, 2000, 356 (9236), 1123.
[13] R.H.B. Meyboom, A.C.G. Egberts, F.W.J. Gribnau, Y.A. Hekster, Drug Safety, 1999, 21(6),
429-447.
[14] Evaluating safety signals, Report of CIOMS working group IV, CIOMS, Geneva, 1998.
[15] Editorial, Lancet, 1997, 349, 1635.
[16] Editorial, Lancet, 2000, 356, 781.
[17] M. Angell, New England J. Med., 2000, 342 (25), 1902-4.
[18] T.F. Dickman, H.R.Veit, Drug Benefit Trends, 2001, 13 (1), 48-52.
[19] C. Barton, J. Silvey, Drug Safety, 1999, 20(2), 95-107.
[20] F. Davidoff, C. DeAngelis, J.M. Drazen, et al., J. the American Medical Association, 2001,
28(10), 1232-4.
[21] W. Wieniawski, WHO Drug Information, 2000, 14 (3), 145-159.
[22] P.I. Folb, P. Olliaro, WHO Drug Information, 2000, 14(2), 82-84.
[23] A.J. Lloyd, Quality in Health Care, 2001, 10 Suppl 1, i14-8.
[24] A. Edwards, G. Elwyn, Medical Decision Making, 1999, 19(4), 428-34.
[25] The Erice Report. International Conference on Developing Effective Communications in
Pharmacovigilance, Erice, Sicily, Sep. 1997, 24-27.
[26] Implementing Pharmacovigilance in Suriname, Suriname, Dec. 2009, 17-28.
[27] P.A. Chyka, S.W. McCommon, Drug Safety, 2000, 23(1), 87-93.
[28] S.B. Soumerai, J. Avorn, J. American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 549-556.
[29] D.A. Davis, M.A. Thomson, A.D. Oxman, R.B. Haynes, J. the American Medical
Association, 1995, 274, 700-705.
[30] Managing the Risks from Medical Product Use: Creating a Risk Management Framework.
http://www.fda.gov/oc/tfrm/1999report.html.
[31] M.N.G. Dukes, Drug Safety, 1990, 5(1), 3-6.
[32] I.R. Edwards IR, J. the Royal College of Physicians, 2000, 34, 48-51.
[33] S.M. Wood, Drug Information J., 1991, 25,191-5
[34] H.P. Roeser, A.P. Rohan, Medical J. Australia, 1990, 153,720-6.
[35] J.P. Collet, N. MacDonald, N. Cashman, R. Pless, Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 2000, 78(2), 178-85.
[36] J. Barnes, S.Y. Mills, N.C. Abbot, M. Willoughby, E. Ernst, British J. Clinical
Pharmacology, 1998, 45(5), 496-500.
[37] M.K. Ang-Lee, J. Moss, C. Yuan, J. the American Medical Association, 2001, 286,208-216.
[38] Quality assurance of pharmaceuticals: A compendium of guidelines and related materials,
Volume 1 & 2, WHO Geneva, 1997, 1999 & 2000.
[39] Guidelines for safety monitoring of herbal preparations are under development.
[40] E.J. Gangarosa, E.J. Galazka, et al., Lancet, 1998, 351,356-61.
[41] Immunization Focus, WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific, Manila, WHO 1999.
[42] Surveillance of adverse events following immunization, Field guide for managers of
immunization programmes, Geneva, WHO, 1997.
[43] Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) http://www.fda.gov/cber/BSE/BSE.htm, Variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact180.htm.
178
Scholar Research Library
 Surendra Bodhanapu et al Der Pharmacia Lettre, 2011, 3(2):165-179
______________________________________________________________________________
[44] L. Simonsen, A. Kane, J. Lloyd, M. Zaffran, M. Kane, Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 1999, 77(10), 789-800.
[45] M.L. Chen, V. Shah, R. Patnaik et al., Pharm Res, 2001, 18, 1645–1650.
[46] D. Crommelin, T. Bermejo, M. Bissig et al., EJHP-S, 2005, 11, 11–17.
[47] H. Schellekens, Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2005, 20 [Suppl 4], iv31–iv36.
[48] N. Casadevall, J. Nataf, B. Viron et al., N Engl J Med, 2002, 346, 469–475.
[49] Guidelines on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived
proteins as active substance: quality issues, European Medicines Agency (EMEA).
www.emea.eu.int, last accessed, 23 Nov 2005.
[50] Guidance on biosimilar medicinal products containing recombinant erythropoietins,
European Medicines Agency (EMEA), www.emea.eu.int, 2005.
[51] WHO Essential Drugs and Medicines Programme, Geneva, 1999 (Document
WHO/HTP/EDM/MAC(11)/99.6).

179
Scholar Research Library

View publication stats