PHARMACOVIGILANCE
Frequently asked questions covering PV system requirements, inspection readiness, signal management, and outsourcing aligned to EU GVP Modules and global PV obligations.
Q1: What is a Pharmacovigilance System Master File (PSMF) and what must it contain?
A: The PSMF is a written description of the pharmacovigilance system used by a Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH). Under EU GVP Module II and Directive 2001/83/EC, it is a mandatory document that must be continuously maintained and available to competent authorities within 7 calendar days on request. The PSMF must describe the organisational structure and responsibilities of the PV system; the QPPV’s qualifications and contact details; the computerised PV systems and databases in use; performance indicators and quality management processes; contracted services (third parties handling PV activities); and the list of products covered. It must accurately reflect the actual operating PV system a PSMF that is not current with live practices is a critical inspection finding. Regular self-inspections and gap assessments are the primary tool for maintaining PSMF accuracy.
Q2: What is the difference between a SUSAR and a SADR, and when must each be reported?
A: A SUSAR (Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction) arises in a clinical trial setting and refers to an adverse reaction that is both serious in nature and unexpected based on the current Investigator’s Brochure (IB). SUSARs must be expedited to the relevant competent authority within 7 calendar days for fatal or life-threatening cases, and 15 calendar days for all other serious unexpected cases from initial receipt. A SADR (Serious Adverse Drug Reaction) arises in a post-marketing setting and refers to a suspected adverse reaction to an authorised medicinal product that meets the seriousness criteria defined in GVP Module VI. Expedited reporting to EudraVigilance is required within 15 calendar days. In both cases, the reporting clock starts when any member of the company’s staff first receives the minimum four required data elements: an identifiable patient, an identifiable reporter, a suspect product, and an adverse event.
Q3: What are the key components of a Risk Management Plan (RMP) under EU GVP Module V?
A: An EU RMP is a structured, living document submitted as part of a new marketing authorisation application and updated throughout the product’s lifecycle. The core components are: Part I (product overview and important identified, important potential, and missing information safety concerns); Part II (pharmacovigilance plan, covering routine and additional activities such as registries, surveys, or enhanced post-marketing studies); and Part III (risk minimisation measures, covering routine measures such as SmPC/PIL and additional measures such as DHPC letters, educational materials, restricted access programmes, and healthcare professional training). The RMP must be consistent with the EPAR and the approved product information. For FDA, the equivalent is a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which is required less frequently but carries mandatory compliance monitoring.
Q4: What triggers a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) and who is responsible for issuing it?
A: A DHPC (sometimes called a ‘Dear Healthcare Professional Letter’) is an urgent safety communication sent to healthcare professionals when new information has emerged that may affect patient safety in a way that requires immediate awareness or a change in prescribing behaviour. Triggers include new contraindications, significant label changes based on serious ADR signals, dose restriction requirements, or withdrawal of a product. In the EU, DHPCs are generally triggered following agreement between the MAH and the competent authority (nationally or via an EMA-led procedure) and must be distributed to targeted healthcare professionals rapidly, typically within 24–48 hours. The MAH is responsible for drafting the communication, agreeing content with the NCA, managing distribution, and confirming delivery to the authority. DHPCs are tracked as risk minimisation measures in the RMP.
Q5: How should a company structure its pharmacovigilance audits and inspections readiness programme?
A: PV audit readiness requires a continuous rather than episodic approach. The foundation is a current, accurate PSMF that reflects actual operations. Organisations should conduct annual internal PV self-inspections against GVP Module I and the relevant national competent authority guidance, supplemented by biennial audits of all significant third-party service providers handling PV activities. Key audit domains include ICSR case processing accuracy and timeliness; aggregate reporting completeness (PBRERs, PADERs); signal detection documentation and audit trail; literature monitoring coverage and records; QPPV oversight evidence; and staff training records. Mock inspection exercises, root cause analysis of previous corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs), and pre-inspection mock scenarios with staff are best-practice preparation tools. Following an actual inspection, all commitments made to the authority must be tracked and closed within agreed timelines.
Q6: What are the main PV obligations for Marketing Authorization Holders (MAHs) post-Brexit in the UK?
A: Post-Brexit, UK Marketing Authorization Holders (UK MAHs) are regulated by the MHRA under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (as amended). Key obligations include maintaining a UK-based QPPV (or a UK Deputy QPPV in specific circumstances), maintaining a UK PSMF, submitting ICSRs directly to MHRA via the ICSR gateway (no longer via EudraVigilance for MHRA), and following UK-specific PBRER/PSUR data lock points and submission timelines. Companies must also comply with updated MHRA pharmacovigilance guidelines (published at GOV.UK), which track GVP broadly but include UK-specific differences. Products with both EU and UK authorisations effectively require parallel PV systems a common organisational challenge that requires careful governance and clear documentation of any shared vs. separate functions.
Comments are closed