Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Postmarketing Surveillance

An Overview from India

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The postmarketing monitoring and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of all medicines is essential. The patterns of use, effectiveness and safety of a drug in general use may be substantially different to that in clinical trials due to differences in prescribing and patient groups; differences include the limited number of patients in studies, restrictions in patient populations (e.g. pregnancy and nursing mothers, children, the elderly and those predisposed to develop adverse events are frequently excluded), and the limited duration of drug use or period of evaluation in clinical trials. In addition, knowledge about effectiveness and safety in off-label use and interactions with concomitantly used drugs remains unknown.

It is important to recognise that clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance address different issues. Postmarketing surveillance data provide new information that was unavailable in premarketing studies. Much larger observational studies can be done, at a lesser cost, to evaluate a drug in a customary use situation.

Highest priority in a postmarketing surveillance system should be given to new chemical entities, populations in which drug effects are not well documented, certain important medical events (e.g. birth and death) and their relationship to drug use and pattern of prescription. Surveillance per se, or its results, will not and cannot be used to change the biological properties or effects of a drug, but can be used to minimise the harmful consequences and maximise the optimal use of a drug.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. JAMA 1999; 281: 824–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Strom BE. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedman MA, Woodcock J, Lumpkin MM, et al. The safety of newly approved medicines: do recent market removals mean there is a problem? JAMA 1999; 281: 1728–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Meyboom RHB, Egberts ACG, Gribnau FWJ, et al. Pharmacovigilance in perspective. Drug Saf 1999; 21: 429–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Temple R. Meta-analysis and epidemiologic studies in drug development and post-marketing surveillance. JAMA 1999; 281: 841–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. van den Bemt MLA, Egberts TCG, de Jong-van den Berg LTW, et al. Drug related problems in hospitalised patients. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 321–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Postmarketing surveillance in the Netherlands [in Dutch]. Gravenhage: Gezondheidsraad, 1999: 90–1

  8. Hennessy S. Postmarketing drug surveillance: an epidemiologic approach. Clin Ther 1998; 20 Suppl. C: 32–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. History and objectives of post marketing surveillance in post marketing surveillance of prescription drugs. Bethesda (MD): Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 1982: 6

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leufkens HG, Urquhart J. Variabiliy in patterns of drug usage. J Pharm Pharmacol 1994; 46 Suppl. 1: 433–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996; 312: 1215–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fergusson DA, Hébert PC, Shapiro S. The before and after study design in transfusion medicine: methodological considerations. Chest 2002; 121 (4): 1290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Spilker B. Classification and description of phase IV post marketing study designs. In: Spilker B, editor. Guide to clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1991: 44–58

    Google Scholar 

  14. Herings RMC, Stricker BH, Nap G, et al. Pharmaco-morbidity link-age: a feasibility study comparing morbidity in two pharmacy-based exposure cohorts. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992; 46: 136–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Herings RMC, de Boer A, Stricker BH, et al. Hypoglycaemia associated with use of inhibitors of angiotensin converting enzyme. Lancet 1995; 345: 1195–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans JM, MacDonald TM. Record-linkage for pharmacovigilance in Scotland. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 105–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mann R, Mackay F, Pearce G, et al. Losartan: a study of pharmacovigilance data on 14, 522 patients. J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 551–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Feenstra J, in’t Veld BA, van der Linden PD, et al. Risk factors for mortality in users of ibopamine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 71–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mann RD, Andrews EB, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  20. Strom BL, editor. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  21. Waller PC, Arlett PA. Responding to signals. In: Mann RD, Andrews EB, editors. Pharmacovigilance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  22. DuMouchel W. Bayesian data mining in large frequency tables, with application an application to the FDA Spontaneous Reporting System. Am Stat 1999; 53: 177–90

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards IR. A Bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 315–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Puijenbroek E, Egberts ACG, Heerdink ER, et al. Detecting drug-drug interaction using a database for spontaneous adverse drug reaction: an example with diurectics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 733–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McNeil JJ, Grabsch EA, McDonald MM. Postmarketing surveillance: strengths and limitations: the flucloxacillin-dicloxacillin story. Med J Aust 1999; 170: 270–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Boyd IW. Postmarketing surveillance: strengths and limitations: the flucloxacillindicloxacillin story [letter]. Med J Aust 1999; 171 (4): 219

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised tripartite guideline: pharmacovigilance planning: E2E. Draft version 4.1, dated on 11th November 2003. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/2004d-0117-gdl0001.pdf [Accessed 2005 Jun 10]

  28. Geborek P, Crnkic M, Peterson IF, et al. Etanercept, infliximab, and leflunomide in established rheumatoid arthritis: clinical experience using a structured follow up programme in south Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 793–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Egberts TCG, Smulders M, de Koning FHP, et al. Can adverse drug reactions detected earlier? A comparison of reports by patients and professionals. BMJ 1996; 313: 530–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. Statement on regulatory systems to improve pharmaceutical safety [online]. Available from URL: http://www.pharmacoepi.org/resources/ispe_safety_statement_02-10-05.pdf [Accessed 2005 May 5]

  31. Waller P, Wood S. New horizons in post-marketing surveillance. Health Trends 1993; 25: 83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Inman WH, Pearce G. Prescriber profile and postmarketing surveillance. Lancet 1993; 342: 658–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Leufkens HG, Heerdink ER. Postmarketing surveillance [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1996; 140: 1201–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Roos JC. Klinisch onderzoekers en farmaceutische industrie: liaisons dangereuses. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1999; 143: 1668–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stricker BH, in’t Veld BA, Feenstra J. Noodzaak van ‘postmarketing surveillance’. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1999; 143: 711–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Inman WH. Postmarketing surveillance: avoid promotional studies [letter]. BMJ 1994; 309: 608–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Waller PC, Wood SM, Langman MJ, et al. Review of company post marketing surveillance studies. BMJ 1992; 304: 1470–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cox NH. Informed consent to post marketing research: patients may feel pressured to participate [letter]. BMJ 1995; 311: 692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Joint Committee of ABPI, BMA, CSM and RCGP. Guidelines on post marketing surveillance. BMJ 1998; 296: 399–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moore TJ, Psaty BM, Furberg CD. Time to act on drug safety. JAMA 1998; 279: 1571–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Leufkens HG, Urquhart J. Prescriber profile and post marketing surveillance [letter]. Lancet 1993; 342: 1178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Guidelines for company-sponsored safety assessment of marketed medicines (SAMM guidelines). Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38: 95–7

    Google Scholar 

  43. Position paper on the use of purported post marketing drug surveillance studies for promotional purposes. Notes of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 48: 598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Waller PC, Wood SM, Breckenridge AM, et al. Why the safety assessment of marketed medicines (SAMM) guidelines are needed [comment]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38: 93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Talbot JC, Nilsson BS. Pharmacovigilance in the pharmaceutical industry. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 427–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Herbold M. International guidelines on post-authorization research and surveillance. European Economic Community. Pharmacopsychiatry 1997; 30 (1 Suppl.): 62–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Health and Human Services — Office of Inspector General. Work plan fiscal year 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/workplan/2005 [Accessed 2005 May 5]

  48. Zielinski KM, Gardner LD, Speed RL. Postmarketing surveillance in the US: a system under scrutiny. Regul Affairs J (Devices) 2005; 13: 67–72

    Google Scholar 

  49. Waller PC, Evans SJW, Beard K. Drug safety and regulation. BMJ 2005 Jul; 331: 4–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Slater EE. Today’s FDA. N Engl J Med 352; 3: 393–7

  51. Guidance for Industry. Postmarketing safety reporting for human drug and biological products including vaccines. Bethesda (MD): Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 2001 Mar; 9 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/safety031201.pdf [Accessed 2005 May 5]

  52. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human use. ICH Harmanonised Tripartite Guidelines ICH E2C: Clinical safety data management: periodic safety update reports for marketed drugs. Dated 1997 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/MediaServer.jser?@_ID=477&@_TYPE=MULTIMEDIA&@_TEMPLATE=616&@_MODE=GLB [Accessed 2005 Jun 10]

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Drugs Controller General of India for providing the postmarketing surveillance reports of the pharmaceutical companies for our comments and opinion.

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College & King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, 400 012, India

    Sanath Hegde, Nithya J. Gogtay & Nilima A. Kshirsagar

Authors
  1. Sanath Hegde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nithya J. Gogtay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nilima A. Kshirsagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanath Hegde.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hegde, S., Gogtay, N.J. & Kshirsagar, N.A. Postmarketing Surveillance. Int J PHarm Med 19, 141–151 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00124363-200519030-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00124363-200519030-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation