Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41400880›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2026

Pharmacovigilance Due Diligence in Drug Development: A Practical Playbook for Risk Identification, Compliance Assessment, and Strategic Decision Making.

Ashraf Youssef, Tarek A Hammad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ashraf YoussefMedical Safety of Marketed Products, Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance, Takeda Development Centre Americas, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA. hgpublications@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5956-1941
Tarek A HammadMedical Safety of Marketed Products, Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance, Takeda Development Centre Americas, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the pharmaceutical industry, due diligence (DD) is a critical, cross-functional process used to evaluate the scientific and regulatory viability of products, particularly during in-licensing or acquisition. Among the various dimensions assessed, safety evaluation plays a pivotal role in determining whether a product is likely to achieve regulatory approval, maintain a favourable benefit-risk balance, and support sustainable market access. This article focuses on the unique role of pharmacovigilance (PV) and safety experts in the DD process. It outlines the key safety-related questions that must be addressed, highlights potential red flags-such as organ-specific toxicities, labelling liabilities, or risk management burdens-and provides practical considerations for evaluating the robustness of the safety data package. Drawing on extensive industry experience and regulatory precedents, this manuscript offers structured guidance for an area where no formal framework exists. It emphasizes the importance of forecasting the likelihood of achieving a positive benefit-risk profile and identifying foreseeable safety-related barriers-ranging from boxed warnings to withdrawal risk-that could delay approval or diminish product value. By proposing a systematic approach to safety DD, including a playbook and an inclusive checklist with colour-coded categorization framework, this paper aims to support more informed, proactive, and risk-calibrated decision making in pharmaceutical transactions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDrug DevelopmentDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug IndustryHumansRisk AssessmentRisk Management

Identifiers

PMID41400880
PMCPMC13086678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.