Skip to main content

Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GPPs)

BayBiotech.NET
Pharmacovigilance is a branch that involves the identification and evaluation of safety signals generated by the usage of a medical product.

Safety Signal: is a concern raised when excess of adverse events are observed compared
to what would be expected with a product's use. Signals can arise from collection of post marketing data, preclinical data and events associated with other products in the same pharmacologic class.

Even a single well-documented case report can be viewed as a signal, particularly if the report describes an event that is extremely rare in the absence of drug use.

Signals indicate the need for further investigation, which may or may not lead to the conclusion that the product caused the event.

After a signal is identified, it should be further assessed to determine whether it represents
a potential safety risk and whether other action should be taken.

Good Pharmacovigilance Practice is based on acquiring complete data from
spontaneous adverse event reports, also known as case reports.

In order to understand and interpret the adverse events, good and well documented reports are emphasized following Good Reporting Practice guidelines:

Good Reporting Practices

A good and well documented Case reports of adverse events submitted to the sponsor and FDA, as well as reports from the medical literature or clinical studies, may generate signals of adverse effects of drugs.

A good quality report is critical for appropriate evaluation of the adverse events caused by the usage of the product.

FDA recommends that reasonable attempts be made to obtain complete information for case assessment during initial contacts and subsequent follow-up, especially for serious events.

Sponsors may use trained and well informed health care practitioners to query reporters.

Computer-assisted interview technology, targeted questionnaires, or other methods developed to target specific events can help focus the line of questioning.

When the report is from a consumer, it is often important to obtain permission to
contact the health care practitioner familiar with the patient’s adverse event to obtain further
medical information and to retrieve relevant medical records, as needed.

It is further recommended that the most aggressive follow-up efforts be directed towards serious
adverse event reports, especially of adverse events not known to occur with the drug.


To find out more about FDA’s guidelines on Good Pharmacovigilance Practices follow the link as under:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6359OCC.htm

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more