The main objective of the pharmacovigilance agreement is to define a mechanism to ensure the flow of customer safety information to the relevant authorities via mah. In order to achieve this objective, it is the responsibility of the POC to assess trade agreements and determine whether the terms relating to counterparty PV obligations are sufficient to ensure the proper execution of activities. On the basis of this assessment, it is necessary, if necessary, to establish an autonomous agreement on the routes for which the duration of the last batch of the affected products put on the market should be very late. Nor should this period of effect be met at the end of the trade agreement concerned. For a periodic security update report (PSUR), the date is the reference date for… Other key groups involved in the SDEA are the Business Development People. In small businesses, too, these individuals can be easily identified and informed about THE PV and security requirements for business transactions. In large companies, this can be more difficult, especially when the manager or manager of each subsidiary has the power to do business without necessarily saying the HomeOffice. Often these chords fall because of the cracks. There are specific considerations to be made depending on the uniqueness of the business relationship that the partners could maintain. To list a few, there could be a scenario whereby there is a “zero VPA” for the business relationship that does not justify sharing security information.
In such cases, POC cannot ignore the full mention of the clause; on the contrary, it should be clearly justified in the trade agreement and/or stand-alone VPA clause (sometimes for other activities). Sometimes the original owner of the product has to take a step backwards because of his own restrictions or regulatory constraints in that particular area to get the MA in his own name. In such scenarios, the MAH would be in the name of the counterparty, which would act as the face of the product only when it comes to submitting legislation and all other activities are carried out by the former party. This situation is delicate and should not be confused with a scenario for regular service providers. Other specific considerations include merger/transfer and piggyback scenarios, which must be treated with the utmost care, taking into account all factors of influence. The SDEAs vary depending on the role of the third part. If the third party only carries out sales activities, their exposure to security data may only require simple instructions on what to do if they run into problems.