Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Nov;59(6):1294-1303.
doi: 10.1007/s43441-025-00844-5. Epub 2025 Jul 25.

Incorporating Patient Needs and Perspectives in Additional Risk Minimization Measures and Other Pharmacovigilance Deliverables - A Framework and Implementation Roadmap

Affiliations

Incorporating Patient Needs and Perspectives in Additional Risk Minimization Measures and Other Pharmacovigilance Deliverables - A Framework and Implementation Roadmap

Linda Smeding et al. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2025 Nov.

Abstract

Various initiatives and guidelines exist to support patient engagement (PE) throughout the lifecycle of a medicinal product. While the recent European Medicines Agency guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (Module XVI; Revision 3) reinforces the importance of involving patients to create effective risk minimization strategies, frameworks supporting the systematic adoption of PE by Marketing Authorization Holders (MAHs) across pharmacovigilance, including the risk management system, are lacking. Furthermore, little is presented on the impact of patient review of additional risk minimization measures materials. We present a tested Pharmacovigilance Patient Centricity Framework describing key focus areas that can create the necessary infrastructure for systematic PE in effective risk minimization materials. Implementation of this framework highlighted the importance of collaboration to drive PE across the company at both local and global level, and externally, as relationships are established with patient organizations and best practices are shared with other MAHs. Therefore, this framework can be considered by other companies as a basis for developing a patient-centric approach to integrate the patient's voice into pharmacovigilance deliverables.

Keywords: Framework; Patient centricity; Patient engagement; Pharmacovigilance; Risk minimization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing Interests: MM declares stock or stock options from Janssen (Centocor). RM declares stock from Pfizer. All authors are employed by GSK. LS, RM, FM, MM, and SA hold financial equities in GSK. The authors declare no other financial or non-financial relationships.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Drug development timeline with key areas of PE and the main guidances, frameworks and initiatives (non-exhaustive) integrating PE across the product lifecycle. CIOMS, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; CDER, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; CTTI, Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative; EFPIA, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations; EMA, European Medicines Agency; EPF, European Patient Forum; EUnetHTA, European network for Health Technology Assessment; EUPATI, European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; GVP, good pharmacovigilance practices; HTA, Health Technology Assessment; ICH, International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; IHI, Innovative Health Initiative; PARADIGM, Patients Active in Research and Dialogues for an Improved Generation of Medicines; PE, patient engagement; PEM, Patient Engagement Management; PEOF, Patient Engagement Open Forum; PFMD, Patient-Focused Medicines Development; PREFER, Patient Preferences in benefit risk assessments during the drug life cycle; RA, Regulatory Affairs; R&D, Research and Development; WHO, World Health Organization
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Plain language summary
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Framework for patient-centric initiatives in pharmacovigilance

References

    1. Auwal FI, Copeland C, Clark EJ, et al. A systematic review of models of patient engagement in the development and life cycle management of medicines. Drug Discov Today. 2023;28:103702. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bertelsen N, Dewulf L, Ferrè S, et al. Patient engagement and patient experience data in regulatory review and health technology assessment: A global landscape review. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2024;58:63–78. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geissler J, Ryll B, di Priolo SL, et al. Improving patient involvement in medicines research and development: A practical roadmap. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51:612–9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: A call for action. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49:929–39. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Janssens R, van Overbeeke E, Verswijvel L, et al. Patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines according to Belgian stakeholders: the gap between theory and practice. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:285. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources