Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42576019›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026

Benchmarking of Saudi pharmacovigilance inspection standards across international regulatory authorities.

Mashael Alhadaithy, Nada Alsaleh, Hammad Aldali

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Mashael AlhadaithyCollege of Pharmacy, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. mmalhadaithy@gmail.com.
Nada AlsalehDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh, 11671, Saudi Arabia.
Hammad AldaliSaudi Food and Drug Authority, Riyadh, 13513, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Drug safetyInternational benchmarkingPharmacovigilance inspectionsRegulatory complianceSaudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA)

Identifiers

PMID42576019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.