Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Drug Safety
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1574-8863
  • E-ISSN: 2212-3911

Abstract

In this review paper, we have analyzed the potential and issues associated with Pharmacovigilance (PV). The analysis is divided into four sections: background, stakeholders, data sources, and medicinal chemistry. Each section discusses the current state, the future trends, and the best practices of PV. The main purpose, methods, results, and implications of our analysis are summarized.

Background

PV is the science and practice of monitoring, evaluating, understanding, and preventing adverse drug reactions. PV was established by the World Health Organization in response to the thalidomide tragedy of 1961. The main purpose of PV is to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs in clinical practice.

Stakeholders

PV involves various stakeholders, such as patients, pharmacists, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare professionals, and regulatory authorities. Each stakeholder has a different role and responsibility in reporting, processing, analyzing, and communicating information about adverse drug reactions. Patient engagement is a key factor for enhancing PV practices.

Data Sources

PV relies on data from various sources, such as clinical trials, spontaneous reports, electronic medical records, biomedical literature, and patient-reported data in online health forums. These data sources can provide valuable insights into the real-world use and safety of drugs, as well as the preferences and needs of patients. However, these data sources also pose challenges in terms of quality, validity, reliability, and accessibility.

Medicinal Chemistry

Medicinal chemistry is the branch of chemistry that deals with the design, synthesis, and evaluation of new drugs and their biological effects. Medicinal chemistry can enhance PV practices by finding new therapeutic indications for existing drugs or compounds that have already been tested for safety and efficacy. Medicinal chemistry also requires careful design and evaluation of covalent inhibitors, bi-substrate inhibitors, stabilizers of protein non-effective conformations, and hydrophobic pocket modifiers to ensure their safety and efficacy.

Implications

PV is a dynamic and evolving discipline that requires collaboration, regulation, education, and innovation to improve patient safety and care. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the potential and issues associated with PV practices.

© 2025 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863277574240125045459
2024-02-02
2025-04-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863277574240125045459
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. GrandvuilleminA. RocherF. Valnet-RabierM.B. DriciM.D. DautricheA. French Pharmacovigilance Network Pharmacovigilance follow-up of patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Therapie202378552352910.1016/j.therap.2023.01.00436754694
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Jonville-BeraA.P. GautierS. MicallefJ. Monitoring the safety of drugs and COVID-19 vaccines by the french pharmacovigilance centers during the pandemic: A win-win bet with health authoritiesTherapies2023S0040-595723505110.1016/j.therap.2023.03.002
     [Google Scholar]
  3. LopesP. NunesT. CamposD. FurlongL.I. Bauer-MehrenA. SanzF. CarrascosaM.C. MestresJ. KorsJ. SinghB. van MulligenE. Van der LeiJ. DialloG. AvillachP. AhlbergE. BoyerS. DiazC. OliveiraJ.L. Gathering and exploring scientific knowledge in pharmacovigilance.PLoS One2013812e8301610.1371/journal.pone.008301624349421
     [Google Scholar]
  4. LazarouJ. PomeranzB.H. CoreyP.N. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies.JAMA1998279151200120510.1001/jama.279.15.12009555760
     [Google Scholar]
  5. SilvermanS.L. From randomized controlled trials to observational studies.Am. J. Med.2009122211412010.1016/j.amjmed.2008.09.03019185083
     [Google Scholar]
  6. PalS.N. DuncombeC. FalzonD. OlssonS. WHO strategy for collecting safety data in public health programmes: Complementing spontaneous reporting systems.Drug Saf.2013362758110.1007/s40264‑012‑0014‑623329541
     [Google Scholar]
  7. HärmarkL. AlbertsS. van PuijenbroekE. DenigP. van GrootheestK. Representativeness of diabetes patients participating in a web‐based adverse drug reaction monitoring system.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.201322325025510.1002/pds.334122933342
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HazellL. ShakirS.A.W. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : A systematic review.Drug Saf.200629538539610.2165/00002018‑200629050‑0000316689555
     [Google Scholar]
  9. MeyboomR.H.B. EgbertsA.C. GribnauF.W.J. HeksterY.A. Pharmacovigilance in perspective.Drug Saf.199921642944710.2165/00002018‑199921060‑0000110612268
     [Google Scholar]
  10. BiagiC. MontanaroN. BuccellatoE. RobertoG. VaccheriA. MotolaD. Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: An intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia–Romagna region).Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.201369223724410.1007/s00228‑012‑1321‑722706618
     [Google Scholar]
  11. ScurtiV. RomeroM. TognoniG. A plea for a more epidemiological and patient-oriented pharmacovigilance.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.2012681111910.1007/s00228‑011‑1096‑221773732
     [Google Scholar]
  12. HärmarkL. van GrootheestA.C. Pharmacovigilance: Methods, recent developments and future perspectives.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.200864874375210.1007/s00228‑008‑0475‑918523760
     [Google Scholar]
  13. SantoroA. GenovG. SpoonerA. RaineJ. ArlettP. Promoting and protecting public health: How the european union pharmacovigilance (PV) system works.Drug Saf.2017401085586910.1007/s40264‑017‑0572‑828735357
     [Google Scholar]
  14. BorgJ.J. AislaitnerG. PirozynskiM. MifsudS. Strengthening and rationalizing pharmacovigilance in the EU: where is Europe heading to? A review of the new EU legislation on pharmacovigilance.Drug Saf.201134318719710.2165/11586620‑000000000‑0000021332243
     [Google Scholar]
  15. SteurbautS. HanssensY. Pharmacovigilance: Empowering healthcare professionals and patients.Int. J. Clin. Pharm.201436585986210.1007/s11096‑014‑0004‑025190178
     [Google Scholar]
  16. van GrootheestK. de GraafL. de Jong-van den BergL.T.W. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: A new step in pharmacovigilance?Drug Saf.200326421121710.2165/00002018‑200326040‑0000112608885
     [Google Scholar]
  17. ChaipichitN. KrskaJ. PratipanawatrT. UchaipichatV. JarernsiripornkulN. A qualitative study to explore how patients identify and assess symptoms as adverse drug reactions.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.201470560761510.1007/s00228‑014‑1653‑624531695
     [Google Scholar]
  18. HazellL. CorneliusV. HannafordP. ShakirS. AveryA.J. Yellow Card Study Collaboration How do patients contribute to signal detection?: A retrospective analysis of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme.Drug Saf.201336319920610.1007/s40264‑013‑0021‑223444232
     [Google Scholar]
  19. McLernonD.J. BondC.M. HannafordP.C. WatsonM.C. LeeA.J. HazellL. AveryA. Yellow Card Collaboration Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: A retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals.Drug Saf.201033977578810.2165/11536510‑000000000‑0000020701410
     [Google Scholar]
  20. ChinchillaK. MatosC. HallV. van HunselF. Patient organizations’ barriers in pharmacovigilance and strategies to stimulate their participation.Drug Saf.202144218119110.1007/s40264‑020‑00999‑032989664
     [Google Scholar]
  21. RolfesL. van HunselF. WilkesS. van GrootheestK. van PuijenbroekE. Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals—differences in reported information.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.201524215215810.1002/pds.368725079444
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Van HunselF. PassierA. Van GrootheestK. Comparing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ ADR reports after media attention: the broadcast of a Dutch television programme about the benefits and risks of statins as an example.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.200967555856410.1111/j.1365‑2125.2009.03400.x19552751
     [Google Scholar]
  23. AndersonC. KrskaJ. MurphyE. AveryA. Yellow Card Study Collaboration The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: A patient perspective.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.201172580682210.1111/j.1365‑2125.2011.03990.x21496066
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ArnottJ. HesselgreavesH. NunnA.J. PeakM. PirmohamedM. SmythR.L. TurnerM.A. YoungB. What can we learn from parents about enhancing participation in pharmacovigilance?Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.20137541109111710.1111/j.1365‑2125.2012.04441.x22905902
     [Google Scholar]
  25. InácioP. AiraksinenM. CavacoA. Language does not come “in boxes”: Assessing discrepancies between adverse drug reactions spontaneous reporting and MedDRA® codes in European Portuguese.Res. Social Adm. Pharm.201511566467410.1016/j.sapharm.2014.11.00925596069
     [Google Scholar]
  26. MargraffF. BertramD. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients: An overview of fifty countries.Drug Saf.201437640941910.1007/s40264‑014‑0162‑y24748428
     [Google Scholar]
  27. AveryA.J. AndersonC. BondC.M. FortnumH. GiffordA. HannafordP.C. HazellL. KrskaJ. LeeA.J. McLernonD.J. MurphyE. ShakirS. WatsonM.C. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: Literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys.Health Technol. Assess.201115201234, iii-iv10.3310/hta1520021545758
     [Google Scholar]
  28. De LangenJ. van HunselF. PassierA. de Jong-van den BergL. van GrootheestK. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: Three years of experience.Drug Saf.200831651552410.2165/00002018‑200831060‑0000618484785
     [Google Scholar]
  29. AagaardL. NielsenL.H. HansenE.H. Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: A retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006.Drug Saf.200932111067107410.2165/11316680‑000000000‑0000019810778
     [Google Scholar]
  30. ColomaP.M. BeckerB. SturkenboomM.C.J.M. van MulligenE.M. KorsJ.A. Evaluating social media networks in medicines safety surveillance: Two case studies.Drug Saf.2015381092193010.1007/s40264‑015‑0333‑526242616
     [Google Scholar]
  31. InchJ. WatsonM.C. Anakwe-UmehS. Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: A systematic review.Drug Saf.2012351080781810.1007/BF0326197722928729
     [Google Scholar]
  32. TopazM. LaiK. DhopeshwarkarN. SegerD.L. Sa’adonR. GossF. RozenblumR. ZhouL. Clinicians’ reports in electronic health records versus patients’ concerns in social media: A pilot study of adverse drug reactions of aspirin and atorvastatin.Drug Saf.201639324125010.1007/s40264‑015‑0381‑x26715498
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SacristánJ.A. AguarónA. AvendañoC. GarridoP. CarriónJ. GutiérrezA. KroesR. FloresA. Patient involvement in clinical research: Why, when, and how.Patient Prefer. Adherence20161063164010.2147/PPA.S10425927175063
     [Google Scholar]
  34. HaerryD. LandgrafC. WarnerK. EUPATI and patients in medicines research and development: Guidance for patient involvement in regulatory processes.Front. Med2018523010.3389/fmed.2018.00230
     [Google Scholar]
  35. PerfettoE.M. BurkeL. OehrleinE.M. EpsteinR.S. Patient-focused drug development.Med. Care201553191710.1097/MLR.000000000000027325494232
     [Google Scholar]
  36. BarakA. Shankar NandiJ. Orphan drugs: Pricing, reimbursement and patient access.Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark.20115429931710.1108/17506121111190121
     [Google Scholar]
  37. MenonD. StafinskiT. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions.Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res.2011111758910.1586/erp.10.8221351860
     [Google Scholar]
  38. MoreiraT. Understanding the role of patient organizations in health technology assessment.Health Expect.20151863349335710.1111/hex.1232525494707
     [Google Scholar]
  39. PicavetE. CassimanD. SimoensS. Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: what (else) matters?Orphanet J. Rare Dis.20149113910.1186/s13023‑014‑0139‑z25208770
     [Google Scholar]
  40. HoosA. AndersonJ. BoutinM. DewulfL. GeisslerJ. JohnstonG. JoosA. MetcalfM. RegnanteJ. SargeantI. SchneiderR.F. TodaroV. TougasG. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: A call for action.Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci.201549692993910.1177/216847901558038426539338
     [Google Scholar]
  41. JanssensR. van OverbeekeE. VerswijvelL. MeeusenL. CoenegrachtsC. PauwelsK. DoomsM. StevensH. SimoensS. HuysI. Patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines according to Belgian stakeholders: The gap between theory and practice.Front. Med.2018528510.3389/fmed.2018.0028530364285
     [Google Scholar]
  42. ClassenD.C. PestotnikS.L. EvansR.S. LloydJ.F. BurkeJ.P. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality.JAMA1997277430130610.1001/jama.1997.035402800390319002492
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lopez-GonzalezE. HerdeiroM.T. FigueirasA. Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A systematic review.Drug Saf.2009321193110.2165/00002018‑200932010‑0000219132802
     [Google Scholar]
  44. BatemanD.N. SandersG.L. RawlinsM.D. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.199234542142610.1111/j.1365‑2125.1992.tb05646.x1467137
     [Google Scholar]
  45. BeltonK.J. LewisS.C. PayneS. RawlinsM.D. WoodS.M. Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom [see comments].Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.199539322322610.1111/j.1365‑2125.1995.tb04440.x7619660
     [Google Scholar]
  46. ElandI.A. BeltonK.J. Van GrootheestA.C. MeinersA.P. RawlinsM.D. StrickerB.H. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.199948462362710.1046/j.1365‑2125.1999.00060.x10583035
     [Google Scholar]
  47. VallanoA. CerezaG. PedròsC. AgustíA. DanésI. AguileraC. ArnauJ.M. Obstacles and solutions for spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the hospital.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.200560665365810.1111/j.1365‑2125.2005.02504.x16305591
     [Google Scholar]
  48. BäckströmM. MjörndalT. DahlqvistR. Nordkvist-OlssonT. Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.2000569-1072973210.1007/s00228000020211214784
     [Google Scholar]
  49. HasfordJ. GoettlerM. MunterK. H. MüllerB. Physicians knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions.J. Clin. Epidemiol200255994595010.1016/S0895‑4356(02)00450‑X
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Medicines Act Guidance notes on applications for clinical trial exemptions and clinical trial certificates.In: MCA1968Chapter 679499
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Von LaueN.C. SchwappachD.L.B. KoeckC.M. The epidemiology of preventable adverse drug events: A review of the literature.Wien. Klin. Wochenschr.20031151240741510.1007/BF0304043212918183
     [Google Scholar]
  52. EkmanE. BäckströmM. Attitudes among hospital physicians to the reporting of adverse drug reactions in Sweden.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol.2009651434610.1007/s00228‑008‑0564‑918825377
     [Google Scholar]
  53. RohillaM. RaveendranA. DhaliwalL.K. ChopraS. Severe anaemia in pregnancy: A tertiary hospital experience from northern India.J. Obstet. Gynaecol.201030769469610.3109/01443615.2010.50982120925612
     [Google Scholar]
  54. De CanecaudeC. MontastrucF. BergeronS. Sanchez-PenaP. GrandvuilleminA. French Network of Regional Pharmacovigilance Centers French pharmacovigilance survey of casirivimab - imdevimab monoclonal antibodies in coronavirus disease (COVID-19).Therapie202378551752210.1016/j.therap.2023.02.00436918316
     [Google Scholar]
  55. MazzitelloC. EspositoS. De FrancescoA. E. CapuanoA. RussoE. De SarroG. Pharmacovigilance in Italy: An overview.J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother.,201341-supplS20S2810.4103/0976‑500X.120942
     [Google Scholar]
  56. TorreC. MartinsA.P. Overview of pharmacoepidemiological databases in the assessment of medicines under real-life conditions.Chapter 8Phramacoepidemiol Drug Saf201210.5772/35318
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Butlen-DucuingF. RivièreF. AarumS. Llinares-GarciaJ. European medicines agency support mechanisms fostering orphan drug development.Drug News Perspect.2010231718110.1358/dnp.2010.23.1.143730320155221
     [Google Scholar]
  58. HerrettE. ThomasS.L. SchoonenW.M. SmeethL. HallA.J. Validation and validity of diagnoses in the general practice research database: A systematic review.Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.201069141410.1111/j.1365‑2125.2009.03537.x20078607
     [Google Scholar]
  59. AdigweO.P. MohammedE.N.A. OnavbavbaG. International training of pharmacists and fitness to practice in Nigeria: Emergent issues and novel insights.Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn.202214561862510.1016/j.cptl.2022.04.00635715103
     [Google Scholar]
  60. KaufmanD.W. RosenbergL. MitchellA.A. Signal generation and clarification: Use of case–control data.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.200110319720310.1002/pds.57111501331
     [Google Scholar]
  61. WallanderM.A. The way towards adverse event monitoring in clinical trials.Drug Saf.19938325126210.2165/00002018‑199308030‑000068452665
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Valnet-RabierB. TebacherM. GautierS. Pharmacovigilance signals from active surveillance of mRNA platform vaccines (tozinameran and elasomeran).Therapies202310.1016/j.therap.2023.03.005
     [Google Scholar]
  63. KlugeH. Martín-MorenoJ.M. EmirogluN. RodierG. KelleyE. VujnovicM. PermanandG. Strengthening global health security by embedding the international health regulations requirements into national health systems.BMJ Glob. Health201831Suppl. 1e00065610.1136/bmjgh‑2017‑00065629379650
     [Google Scholar]
  64. PalassinP. BresV. HassanS. AlfonsiA. MassyN. Gras-ChampelV. MariaA.T.J. FaillieJ.L. French Network of Pharmacovigilance Centers Comprehensive description of adult-onset still’s disease after COVID-19 vaccination.J. Autoimmun.202313410298010.1016/j.jaut.2022.10298036592513
     [Google Scholar]
  65. GranasA.G. BuajordetM. Stenberg-NilsenH. HargP. HornA.M. Pharmacists’ attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway.Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf.200716442943410.1002/pds.129816953518
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Janaki MeenaM. ChandranK.R. KarthikA. Vijay SamuelA. A parallel ACO algorithm to select terms to categorise longer documents.International Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng.201164238248
     [Google Scholar]
  67. YamamotoM. Patient drug information leaflets for risk/benefit communication.J. Pharmacovigil.2015313210.4172/2329‑6887.1000e132
     [Google Scholar]
  68. SawarkarA. SharmaR.K. GautamV. ShramankarK. DinodiaN. Pharmacovigilance: Present status and future perspectives.Pharma Innov.2019888492
     [Google Scholar]
  69. ShindeS. Treprostinil: Safety signal detection based on adverse event reporting system database.J. Pharmacovigil.201424410.4172/2329‑6887.1000140
     [Google Scholar]
  70. MahmoudM.A. AlswaidaY. AlshammariT. KhanT.M. AlrasheedyA. HassaliM.A. AljadheyH. Community pharmacists’ knowledge, behaviors and experiences about adverse drug reaction reporting in Saudi Arabia.Saudi Pharm. J.201422541141810.1016/j.jsps.2013.07.00525473329
     [Google Scholar]
  71. MgR. Kumar VP. SY. Roles of pharmacist in pharmacovigilance: A need of the hour.J. Pharmacovigil.20164610.4172/2329‑6887.1000221
     [Google Scholar]
  72. StromB.L. HennessyS. Pharmacist care and clinical outcomes for patients with reactive airways disease.JAMA2002288131642164310.1001/jama.288.13.164212350196
     [Google Scholar]
  73. MossR.H. EdmondsJ.A. HibbardK.A. ManningM.R. RoseS.K. van VuurenD.P. CarterT.R. EmoriS. KainumaM. KramT. MeehlG.A. MitchellJ.F.B. NakicenovicN. RiahiK. SmithS.J. StoufferR.J. ThomsonA.M. WeyantJ.P. WilbanksT.J. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment.Nature2010463728274775610.1038/nature0882320148028
     [Google Scholar]
  74. MossR.L. GarnettW.R. SteinerK.C. Physician attitudes toward pharmacists counseling patients on adverse drug reactions.Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm.198037224324710.1093/ajhp/37.2.2437361800
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Guillard-MaureC. ElangoV. BlackS. Perez-VilarS. CastroJ.L. Bravo-AlcántaraP. Molina-LeónH.F. WeibelD. SturkenboomM. ZuberP.L.F. Operational lessons learned in conducting an international study on pharmacovigilance in pregnancy in resource-constrained settings: The WHO global vaccine safety multi-country collaboration project.Vaccine201736335536210.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.08528780118
     [Google Scholar]
  76. TokluH.Z. HussainA. The changing face of pharmacy practice and the need for a new model of pharmacy education.J. Young Pharm.201352384010.1016/j.jyp.2012.09.00124023452
     [Google Scholar]
  77. AlshabiA.M. ShaikhM.A.K. ShaikhI.A. AlkahtaniS.A. AljadaanA. Knowledge, attitude and practice of hospital pharmacists towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in Najran, Saudi Arabia.Saudi Pharm. J.20223071018102610.1016/j.jsps.2022.04.01435903528
     [Google Scholar]
  78. SmithM. GiulianoM.R. StarkowskiM.P. In Connecticut: Improving patient medication management in primary care.Health Aff.201130464665410.1377/hlthaff.2011.000221471485
     [Google Scholar]
  79. SchoenhausR. LustigA. RivasS. MonrrealV.Jr WestrichK.D. DuboisR.W. Using an electronic medication refill system to improve provider productivity in an accountable care setting.J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm.201622320420810.18553/jmcp.2016.22.3.20427003549
     [Google Scholar]
  80. BelehM. EngelsM. GarciaG. Integrating a new medicinal chemistry and pharmacology course sequence into the PharmD curriculum.Am. J. Pharm. Educ.20157911310.5688/ajpe7911325741029
     [Google Scholar]
  81. TomoyasuY. MukaeK. SudaM. HayashiT. IshiiM. SakaguchiM. WatanabeY. JinzenjiA. AraiY. HiguchiH. MaedaS. MiyawakiT. Allergic reactions to local anesthetics in dental patients: Analysis of intracutaneous and challenge tests.Open Dent. J.20115114614910.2174/187421060110501014621915228
     [Google Scholar]
  82. HolbrookA. WrightM. SungM. RibicC. BakerS. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis: Is there a dose-response relationship?Can. J. Cardiol.201127214615110.1016/j.cjca.2010.12.02421459261
     [Google Scholar]
  83. HarrisI.M. PhillipsB. BoyceE. GriesbachS. HopeC. SanoskiC. SokosD. WargoK. Clinical pharmacy should adopt a consistent process of direct patient care.Pharmacotherapy2014348e133e14810.1002/phar.145925112525
     [Google Scholar]
  84. ScheinC.H. Repurposing approved drugs on the pathway to novel therapies.Med. Res. Rev.202040258660510.1002/med.2162731432544
     [Google Scholar]
  85. AlsharifN.Z. GaltK.A. Evaluation of an instructional model to teach clinically relevant medicinal chemistry in a campus and a distance pathway.Am. J. Pharm. Educ.20087223110.5688/aj72023118483599
     [Google Scholar]
  86. CooleyJ. LeeJ. Implementing the pharmacists’ patient care process at a public pharmacy school.Am. J. Pharm. Educ.2018822630110.5688/ajpe630129606712
     [Google Scholar]
  87. AggarwalN. JainS. A synthetic approach, characterization and biological evaluation of novel 5-(arylidene)-2-(5-methyl-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-ylimino) thiazolidin-4-one derivatives.Asian J. Chem.20213371530153610.14233/ajchem.2021.23203
     [Google Scholar]
  88. RivkinA. Thinking clinically from the beginning: Early introduction of the pharmacists’ patient care process.Am. J. Pharm. Educ.2016801016410.5688/ajpe801016428179713
     [Google Scholar]
  89. GoelA. Garima AggarwalN. KapoorG. ChopraH. NaagarM. GangwarA. SinghP. DhamaK. Skin and soft tissue infections: Current advancement in epidemiology, pathogenesis and management.J. Pure Appl. Microbiol.20231718911110.22207/JPAM.17.1.50
     [Google Scholar]
  90. RebitchC.B. FlemingV.H. RongR.P. RongH. ChoiI. Evaluation of video-enhanced case-based activities guided by the pharmacists’ patient care process.Am. J. Pharm. Educ.2019834667610.5688/ajpe667631223151
     [Google Scholar]
  91. KumarH. AggarwalN. MarwahaM.G. DeepA. ChopraH. MatinM.M. RoyA. EmranT.B. MohantaY.K. AhmedR. MohantaT.K. SaravananM. MarwahaR.K. Al-HarrasiA. Thiazolidin-2,4-dione scaffold: An insight into recent advances as antimicrobial, antioxidant, and hypoglycemic agents.Molecules20222719676310.3390/molecules2719676336235304
     [Google Scholar]
  92. KumarD. AggarwalN. DeepA. KumarH. ChopraH. MarwahaR.K. CavaluS. An understanding of mechanism-based approaches for 1,3,4-oxadiazole scaffolds as cytotoxic agents and enzyme inhibitors.Pharmaceuticals202316225410.3390/ph1602025437259401
     [Google Scholar]
  93. BowarB. McCarthyB.C.Jr Integration of the pharmacists’ patient care process into a comprehensive disease management course series.Am. J. Pharm. Educ.2019833740010.5688/ajpe740031065171
     [Google Scholar]
  94. KapoorG. BhutaniR. DuttaM. SharmaA. KhanF. BhattP. Future technology based HPLC analytical procedures and pharmaceutical description of empagliflozin.J. Pharm. Negat. Results20221391453146510.47750/pnr.2022.13.S09.176
     [Google Scholar]
  95. BeniwalM. JainN. JainS. AggarwalN. Design, synthesis, anticancer evaluation and docking studies of novel 2-(1-isonicotinoyl-3-phenyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-3-phenylthiazolidin-4-one derivatives as Aurora-A kinase inhibitors.BMC Chem.20221616110.1186/s13065‑022‑00852‑835027086
     [Google Scholar]
  96. KapoorG. BhutaniR. PathakD.P. ChauhanG. KantR. GroverP. NagarajanK. SiddiquiS.A. Current advancement in the oxadiazole-based scaffolds as anticancer agents.Polycycl. Aromat. Compd.20224274183421510.1080/10406638.2021.1886123
     [Google Scholar]
  97. AmemiyaT. GromihaM.M. HorimotoK. FukuiK. Drug repositioning for dengue haemorrhagic fever by integrating multiple omics analyses.Sci. Rep.20199152310.1038/s41598‑018‑36636‑130679503
     [Google Scholar]
  98. SharmaA. KapoorG. KumarS. BhutaniR. SharmaD. ChettriS. Evaluation of medication/drug use rationale and impediments due to influencing perception of self-medication.J. Pharm. Negat. Results20221372329233610.47750/pnr.2022.13.S07.318
     [Google Scholar]
  99. HassanM. RazaH. AbbasiM.A. MoustafaA.A. SeoS.Y. The exploration of novel Alzheimer’s therapeutic agents from the pool of FDA approved medicines using drug repositioning, enzyme inhibition and kinetic mechanism approaches.Biomed. Pharmacother.20191092513252610.1016/j.biopha.2018.11.11530551512
     [Google Scholar]
  100. SalehH.A. Fourrier-RéglatA. DiogèneE. Patient-centered pharmacovigilance: A review.Trop. J. Pharm. Res.201817117918810.4314/tjpr.v17i1.24
     [Google Scholar]
  101. SharmaR. GalibR. PrajapatiP.K. Good pharmacovigilance practice: Accountability of Ayurvedic pharmaceutical companies.Anc. Sci. Life201736316716910.4103/asl.ASL_10_1728867862
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Van HoofM. ChinchillaK. HärmarkL. MatosC. InácioP. van HunselF. Factors contributing to best practices for patient involvement in pharmacovigilance in Europe: A stakeholder analysis.Drug Saf.202245101083109810.1007/s40264‑022‑01222‑y36008634
     [Google Scholar]
  103. SukeS.G. KostaP. NegiH. Role of pharmacovigilance in India: An overview.Online J. Public Health Inform.201572e22310.5210/ojphi.v7i2.559526392851
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863277574240125045459
Loading
Role and Responsibilities of Various Stakeholders in Pharmacovigilance
Curr Drug Saf 20, 19 (2025); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115748863277574240125045459
/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863277574240125045459
/content/journals/cds/10.2174/0115748863277574240125045459
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Review Article
Keyword(s): adverse drug reactions (ADRs); medicinal chemistry; Pharmacovigilance (PV); practices; regulatory authorities; strategic innovations

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test