Post-marketing surveillance: a UK/European perspective

ABSTRACT The granting of regulatory approval allows medical practitioners to prescribe a drug in a controlled way to a group of patients defined within the licence. Prior to this, the new product may have been evaluated often in less than 5000 patients and usually in a selected environment in which many patients have been excluded, including for example, women of childbearing potential, the elderly and children. Co-existent disease and the concomitant use of a number of common drug treatments also frequently exclude patients from pre-licensing trials. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that many adverse drug reactions are only detected once the product has been prescribed to the general population. National and international regulatory bodies, therefore, provide systems for post-marketing pharmacosurveillance, although participation in these by clinicians is generally voluntary and under-reporting is widespread. Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) studies are not generally an integral component to launching a new drug and many clinicians are sceptical over data generated in trials which do not conform to the ‘gold standard’ randomised control trial (RCT) design. However, in dismissing such studies, a great opportunity to obtain information, often from many thousands of subjects, is being missed. This article discusses post-marketing pharmacovigilance and the role of PMS studies in the context of current UK and European legislation.

[1]  R. W. Hansen,et al.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[2]  E. Vesell,et al.  Underrepresentation of women in clinical drug trials , 1993, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[3]  Nicholas Moore,et al.  Differences between clinical trials and postmarketing use. , 2003, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[4]  Supporting the industry: the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. , 1996, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[5]  G. Bugeja,et al.  Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports , 1997, BMJ.

[6]  Emma Heeley,et al.  Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions , 2001, The Lancet.

[7]  Bernard Bégaud,et al.  Rates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in France. , 2002, JAMA.

[8]  Rawlins,et al.  Guidelines for company-sponsored Safety Assessment of Marketed Medicines (SAMM) guidelines. Medicines Control Agency, Committee on Safety of Medicines, Royal College of General Practitioners, British Medical Association and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (November 1993) , 1994, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[9]  Manuel Gomez,et al.  Evaluation of the Extent of Under-Reporting of Serious Adverse Drug Reactions , 2004, Drug safety.

[10]  J. B. Gregg,et al.  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. , 1910, California state journal of medicine.

[11]  M. Leon,et al.  Post–Market Approval Surveillance: A Call for a More Integrated and Comprehensive Approach , 2004, Circulation.

[12]  J. Aronson,et al.  Adverse drug reactions in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. , 1996, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[13]  T. Mjörndal,et al.  Under‐reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden , 2004, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.