Good practice in the postmarketing surveillance of medicines

Pharmacy World and Science

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 186-190

  Meyboom, R H B ^a  

^a Stichting LAREB   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adverse drug reactions; Good practice; Medical ethics; Pharmacovigilance; Postmarketing surveillance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH;

FORECASTING; HUMANS; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING;

EID: 0030879777     PISSN: 09281231     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008610722972     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 850, 1995. World Health Organization Geneva, Switzerland.
2. Note for guidance for good clinical practice for trials on medicinal products in the European Community. Commission of the European Communities, III/3976/88; 1990.
3. Spilker B. Guide to clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991.
4. Gezondheidsraad: Commissie Postmarketing Surveillance. Postmarketing Surveillance in Nederland. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, 1991; Publicatienummer 1991/12.
5. Bégaud B, Chaslerie A, Fourrier A, Haramburu F, Miremont G, eds. Methodological approaches in pharmacoepidemiology. Application to spontaneous reporting. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993.
6. Inman WHW, Gill EP, eds. Monitoring for Drug Safety. Lancaster: M TP Press, 1986.
7. Stephens M D B. The detection of new adverse drug reactions. 2nd ed. London: The Macmillan Press, 1992.
8. Strom BL, ed. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994.
9. Meyboom RHB, Gribnau FWJ, Hekster YA, De Koning GHP, Egberts ACG. Characteristics of topics in pharmacovigilance in the Netherlands. Clin Drug Invest 1996;4:207-19.
10. Commission of the European Communities. Notice to applicants for marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use in the European Community. III/5429/96, May 1996.
11. International Drug Monitoring: The Role of National Centres. World Health Organization Technical Report Series, No. 498, Geneva, 1972.
12. Royer RJ, Lagier G. La Pharmacovigilance. Paris: Editions Medicales SPECIA/PIL, 1986.
13. Mann RD, ed. Adverse Drug Reactions. Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing Group, 1987.
14. Griffin JP, Weber JCP. Voluntary systems of adverse reaction reporting. In: Griffin JP, D'Arcy PF, Harron DWG, eds. Medicines: regulation, research and risk. Antrim: Greystone Books, 1989.
15. Rawlins MD. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions. Brit J Clin Pharmacol 1988;26:1-11.
16. Wiholm BE, Olsson S. Spontaneous reporting systems outside the United States. In: Strom BL, ed. Pharmacoepidemiology. New York: Churchville Livingstone, 1989:119.
17. Meyboom RHB. Spontaneous monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs, procedures and experiences in the Netherlands. In: Strom BL, Velo G, eds. Drug epidemiology and post-marketing surveillance. New York: Plenum Press, 1992:21.
18. McEwen J, Vrhovac B. Panel on management of ADR reports in selected national centres. Drug Information Journal 1985;19:329-44.
19. Meyboom RHB, Royer RJ. Causality classification at pharmacovigilance centres in the European Community. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1992;1:87-97.
20. Gezondheidsraad: Beraadsgroep Gezondheidsethiek en Gezondheidsrecht. Privacy bij Postmarketing surveillance. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, 1993; publicatie nr 1993/08.
21. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93, Articles 19 - 22.
22. Council Directive 75/319/EEC as amended, Chapter Va, Articles 29b to 29d.
23. Notice to applicants for marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use in the European (Draft). Chapter V, Pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use. Commission of the European Communities. Community. III/5944/94, December 1994.
24. Inman WHW. PEM News, No. 5, 1988. Drug Safety Research Unit, Bursledon Hall, Southampton, SO3 8BA.
25. McNamee D. Speaking about pharmacovigilance. Lancet 1996;348:908.
26. Roscam Abbing HDC. Informatie en toestemming in de gezondheidszorg; recente ontwikkelingen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1994;138:2561-4.
27. Mann RD. Databases, privacy, and confidentiality - the effect of proposed new legislation on pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety monitoring. In: Aronson JK, Van Boxtel CJ, eds. Side Effects of Drugs Annual 18. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1995 (xxi-xxxv).
28. De Wit MEC, Porsius AJ, Stricker BHCh. The use of confidential medical data and postmarketing surveillance: a survey of the opinion of patients. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1996;5:321-4.
29. Edwards IR, Biriell C. Harmonisation in pharmacovigilance. Drug Safety 1994;10:93-102.
30. Edwards R, Lindquist M, Wiholm BE, Napke E. Quality criteria for early signals of possible adverse drug reactions. Lancet 1990;336:156-8.
31. Edwards IR, Danan G, Biriell C, Bénichou C. Proposed Improvement to the WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1993;2:177-84.
32. Bonnes Pratiques de Pharmacovigilance. December 1994, Agence du Médicament, 143-147 boulevard Anatole France, Saint-Denis.
33. GPMSP, Notification No. 646. Standard for implementation of the post-marketing surveillance for the reexamination applications of new drugs. Director General, Pharmaceutical Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Health and Welfare (Japan), 18 June 1991.
34. International Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions, Final Report of CIOMS Working Group I, Geneva, 1990.
35. International Reporting of Periodic Drug-Safety Update Summaries. Final Report of CIOMS Working Group II, Geneva, 1992.
36. Basic requirements for the use of terms for reporting adverse drug reactions. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1992;1:39-45.
37. Guideline on adverse reactions reporting by marketing authorisation holders. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Commission of the European Communities. III/3174/93-EN, Draft no. 4, 1993.
38. Guideline for marketing authorisation holders on periodic drug safety update reports. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Commission of the European Communities III/3175/93-EN, Draft no. 4, 1993.
39. Draft guideline for marketing authorisation holders on company-sponsored post-marketing safety studies. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Commission of the European Communities III/3176/93-EN, Draft no. 3, 1993.
40. Guideline for marketing authorisation holders on on-going pharmacovigilance evaluation during the post-marketing period. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Commission of the European Communities III/3177/93-EN, Draft no. 4, 1993.
41. Wood KL. The Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Affairs (MEDDRA) Project. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1994;3:7-13.
42. Bénichou C. Towards and adverse drug reactions dictionary. Should existing terminologies be harmonized? Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1993;2:185-8.
43. Bénichou C, ed. Adverse drug reactions. A practical guide to diagnosis and management. Chichester: John Wiley, 1994.
44. Mundeil I. ICH guidelines finalised for 2 further aspects of ADR reporting. Inpharma 18 March 1995:20-21.
45. Rawlins MD, Fracchia GN, Rodriguez-Farré E EURO-ADR: Pharmacovigilance and research. A European perspective. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1992:1:261-8.
46. Waller PC, Wood SM, Breckenridge AM, Rawlins MD. Why the Safety Assessment of Marketed Medicines (SAMM) guidelines are needed. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994;38:93.
47. ISPE Notice. Guidelines for Good Epidemiology Practices for Drug, Device and Vaccine Research in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 1996;5:333-8.
48. WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring (Uppsala). Report Type Q No 23, New to the system - documentation grading, October-December 1996.