Advertisement

Challenges and Best Practices in Perspective

  • Michael Kaeding
  • Julia Schmälter
  • Christoph Klika
Open Access
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we compare the challenges and best practices identified in the country chapters so that the in-depth analysis of selected Member States is complemented with a broader overview. In doing so, we aim to provide a better understanding of the practical implementation of the new European Union (EU) pharmacovigilance legislation across Member States.

Keywords

European Union Member State Healthcare Professional Regional Unit Batch Number 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Borg et al. (2015). European Union Pharmacovigilance Capabilities: Potential for the New Legislation. Ther Adv Drug Safety 6 (4): 120-140.Google Scholar
  2. Dolinar, R., Reilly, M. (2014). Biosimilars Naming, Label Transparency and Authority of Choice – Survey Findings among European Physicians. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative 3 (2): 58-62.Google Scholar
  3. Douros, A. et al. (2016). Pharmakovigilanz in Deutschland. Internist 57: 616-623.Google Scholar
  4. European Commission Pharmaceutical Committee (2015). Overview of Member States Biennial Reports on Audits of their Pharmacovigilance Systems (2013 Reporting Year). Pharmaceutical Committee, 21 October 2015, PHARM 693.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (2016). Pharmacovigilance Related Activities of Member States and the European Medicines Agency Concerning Medicinal Products for Human Use (2012-2014), COM(2016) 498 final, Brussels, 08.08.2016.Google Scholar
  6. Jadeja, M., Barrow, P. (2016). Topic 4.3: Awareness Levels. SCOPE Work Package 4 Survey Report.Google Scholar
  7. Jan, T., Radecka, (2015). Topic 4 Review of Reporting Forms. SCOPE Work Package 4 Survey Report.Google Scholar
  8. Klein, K., De Bruin, M. L., Broekmans, A. W., Stolk, P. (2015). Classification of Recombinant Biologics in the EU: Divergence between National Pharmacovigilance Centres. BioDrugs 29: 373-379.Google Scholar
  9. Moore, N., Bégaud, B. (2010). Improving Pharmacovigilance in Europe. The BMJ 340: c1694.Google Scholar
  10. Šarinić, V. M., Di Giusti, M. D., Banovac, M., Skurce, N. M., Gvozdanović, K., Krnic, D., Andrić, A., Šipić, I., Cajko, N., Sudić, D., Lovretić, N. (2016). Topic 1 Audit of National Reporting Systems, Topic 1a Medication Errors, Topic 2 Patient Reporting, Topic 5 Review of IT Systems and Special Form of Reports. SCOPE Work Package 4 Survey Report.Google Scholar
  11. Vermeer, N. S., Straus, S. M. J. M., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A. K., Domergue, F., Egberts, T. C. G., Leufkens, H. G. M., De Bruin, M. L. (2013). Traceability of Biopharmaceuticals in Spontaneous Reporting Systems: A Cross-Sectional Study in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and EudraVigilance Databases. Drug Safety 36: 617-625.Google Scholar
  12. Vermeer, N. S., Spierings, I., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A. K., Straus, S. M. J. M., Giezen, T. J., Leufkens, H. G. M., Egberts, T. C. G., De Bruin, M. L. (2015). Traceability of Biologicals: Present Challenges in Pharmacovigilance. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, 14 (1).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kaeding
    • 1
  • Julia Schmälter
    • 1
  • Christoph Klika
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftUniversität Duisburg-Essen Institut für PolitikwissenschaftDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations