ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Benchmarking of Saudi pharmacovigilance inspection standards across international regulatory authorities.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacovigilance (PV) inspections are a key regulatory tool to ensure marketing authorization holders (MAHs) comply with safety requirements. The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) regulates PV in accordance with its Saudi Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (Saudi GVP) guideline. Despite the worldwide standards established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), inspection practices differ, necessitating benchmarking to enhance conformity with international best practices. The objective of this study is to benchmark the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) pharmacovigilance inspection system against international practices to enhance regulatory oversight and provide insights into inspection trends over years. This is a comparative benchmarking study that reviewed the pharmacovigilance inspection frameworks of the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A mixed-methods approach was used, drawing on secondary data sources, including both quantitative and qualitative content derived from official regulatory inspection documents. The three regulatory authorities shared core pharmacovigilance inspection elements, including risk-based inspection planning, inspector qualification, and management of corrective and preventive actions (CAPA), while differing in several operational aspects. Structured global regulatory reliance mechanisms were established within the EMA and FDA frameworks but remained limited within the SFDA framework. The SFDA and EMA classified findings as critical, major, or minor, while the FDA used outcome-based categories (OAI: Official Action Indicated; VAI: Voluntary Action Indicated; NAI: No Action Indicated) and Form 483 to point out objectionable conditions. CAPA timelines varied: the SFDA established a 30-day period, the EMA modified timelines based on severity, and the FDA mandated a 15-day timeframe. The SFDA has established a solid, risk-based pharmacovigilance inspection system, reflecting strong regulatory capacity, while the development of structured global regulatory reliance mechanisms represents an opportunity to further strengthen the SFDA pharmacovigilance inspection framework. This would further align SFDA practices with international standards and strengthen Saudi Arabia's leadership in pharmacovigilance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42576019What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.