Pharmacovigilance (PV) is an integral part of the drug regulation system. PV plays an indispensable role in the identification, assessment, and publicizing of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through various methods. ADRs account for serious harm to the patients and even lead to morbidity and mortality. The PV databases help in the promotion of safe drug use and protection of public health safety. This article compares the PV system in the USA, Europe, and India, highlighting the challenges and future perspectives to be adapted to widen the horizon of the existing PV structure in India. In India, PV programs are still at the dawning stage when paralleled to the other countries. The National Pharmacovigilance Program and the Pharmacovigilance Program of India are the most recent advancements in this field in the country. The USA and Europe have well-established PV systems in place thanks to technological progress and other resources. India is the largest producer of pharmaceuticals in the world and a major clinical research hub; hence, it requires a more stringent PV setup. With the increase in population and novel drugs in the market each day, there is a need for an effective PV system in India.
GuptaSKKumarKD. An assessment of reported adverse drug reactions in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Int J Pharm Investig. 2017;7:193–197.
2.
MoutonJPMehtaURossiterDPMaartensGCohenK. Interrater agreement of two adverse drug reaction causality assessment methods: a randomised comparison of the Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Causality Assessment Tool and the World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre System. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172830.
3.
NaranjoCABustoUSellersEM, et al.A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;30:239–245.
4.
HornbuckleKWuHHFungMC. Evaluation of spontaneous adverse event reports by primary reporter—a 15-year review (1983 to 1997). Drug Inf J. 1999;33:1117–1124.
5.
ChakrabortyBS. Pharmacovigilance: a data mining approach to signal detection. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47:241–242.
CampbellJEGossell-WilliamsLee MG. A review of pharmacovigilance. West Indian Med J. 2014;63:771–774.
8.
MontastrucJLSommetABagheriHLapeyre-MestreM. Benefits and strengths of the disproportionality analysis for identification of adverse drug reactions in a pharmacovigilance database. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72:905–908.
9.
GurwitzJHAvornJ. The ambiguous relation between aging and adverse drug reactions. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:956–966.
10.
WhiteTJArakelianARhoJP. Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:445–458.
11.
ZakiSA. Adverse drug reaction and causality assessment scales. Lung India. 2011;28:152–153.
12.
BrahmachariBFernandesMBhattA. Pharmacovigilance for clinical trials in India: current practice and areas for reform. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2:49.
13.
GuptaYK. Ensuring patient safety—launching the new Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. Pharma Times. 2010;42:21–26.
14.
RehanHS. Status of pharmacovigilance program of India. Tamil Nadu J Vet Anim Sci. 2013;9:417–420.
15.
MaQLuAY. Pharmacogenetics, pharmacogenomics, and individualized medicine. Pharmacol Rev. 2011;63:437–459.
16.
SinghKNMKanaseHR. Pharmacovigilance Programme of India: the beginning, current status and recent progress. Adv Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;6:219.
17.
AdithanC. National pharmacovigilance programme. Indian J Pharmacol. 2004;37:347.
18.
KalaiselvanVSharmaSSinghGN. Adverse reactions to contrast media: an analysis of spontaneous reports in the database of the Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. Drug Saf. 2014;37:703–710.
19.
Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. Pharmacovigilance Programme for India (PvPI): Assuring Drug Safety. Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. http://cdsco.nic.in/pharmacovigilance.htm. Accessed April 12, 2018.
20.
LihiteRJLahkarM. An update on the Pharmacovigilance Programme of India. Front Pharmacol. 2015;6:194.
21.
ParidaS. Clinical causality assessment for adverse drug reactions. Indian J Anaesth. 2013;57:325–326.
22.
KalaiselvanVThotaPSinghGN. Pharmacovigilance Programme of India: recent developments and future perspectives. Indian J Pharmacol. 2016;48:624–628.
23.
MarieLV.The WHO Global ICSR Database System: Basic Facts 2008. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2008;42:409–419.
24.
KhatriGR. National tuberculosis control programme. J Indian Med Assoc. 1996;94:372–375.
25.
NagpalMTayalVKumarSGuptaU. Adverse drug reactions to antiretroviral therapy in AIDS patients at a tertiary care hospital in India: a prospective observational study. Indian J Med Sci. 2010;64:245–252.
26.
ParidaS. Clinical causality assessment for adverse drug reactions. Indian J Anaesth. 2013;57:325–326.
27.
FouretierAMalriqABertramD. Open access pharmacovigilance databases: analysis of 11 databases. Pharm Med. 2016;30:221–231.
28.
CraigleV. Med Watch: the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007;95:224–225.
29.
HanLBallRPamerCAAltmanRBProestelS. Development of an automated assessment tool for Med Watch reports in the FDA adverse event reporting system. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2017;24:913–920.
30.
KurzX. The Eudra Vigilance database of spontaneous adverse reactions as a tool for H1N1 vaccine safety monitoring. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:330–333.
PacurariuACColomaPMvan HarenAGenovGSturkenboomMCStrausSM. A description of signals during the first 18 months of the EMA pharmacovigilance risk assessment committee. Drug Saf. 2014;37:1059–1066.
33.
PostigoRBroschSSlatteryJ, et al.EudraVigilance Medicines Safety Database: publicly accessible data for research and public health protection. Drug Saf. 2018;41:665–675.
34.
BhargaviHJadav KrupaCThula DilipGMaheswariR. Regulatory requirements of Pharmacovigilance system and its comparison in India and USA. J Glob Trends Pharm Sci. 2015;6:2351–2356.
35.
MillerVNwokikeJStergachisA. Pharmacovigilance and global HIV/AIDS. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7:299–304.
GouldAL. Practical pharmacovigilance analysis strategies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12:559–574.
39.
TandonVMahajanVKhajuriaVGillaniZ. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a challenge for pharmacovigilance in India. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47:65–71.
40.
KhattriSBalamuralidharaVPramodKTMValluruRVenkateshMP. Pharmacovigilance regulations in India: a step forward. Clin Res Regul Aff. 2012;29:41–45.
41.
BiswasPBiswasAK. Setting standards for proactive pharmacovigilance in India: the way forward. Indian J Pharmacol. 2007;39:124–128.
42.
BusinaroR. Why we need an efficient and careful pharmacovigilance?J Pharmacovigilance. 2013;1:4–8.
