Objective: To propose the best pharmacovigilance plan in Japan by comparing post marketing safety studies in Japan and the U.S.
Method: Among all of the newly approved medicines in Japan in 2010, 12 marketed products in the U. S. are selected. First, to examine the U. S. system, post-marketing safety concerns over those drugs at the time of approval in the U. S. were collected as well as its postmarketing requirements (PMR) which are studies or clinical trials that sponsors are required to conduct under one or more statutes of regulations. Then, the same drugsʼ safety issues discussed as special cautions listed during the approval process in Japan and the corresponding postmarketing safety studies were reviewed.
Result: Both countries have many safety concerns in common, however, in Japan, ongoing studies are only conventional studies, such as post-marketing surveillance studies or all-cases studies, while the U. S. conducts studies to meet each individual requirement need. Ideal post-marketing safety study designs proposed by the task force, seemed beyond sponsors capabilities, particularly with regard to conduct studies with control group, and require involvement of academia external research organizations, or establishment of the national registry system for cancer and other major diseases.
Conclusion: In Japan, Risk Management Plan (RMP) will soon be implemented in 2013, and that is expected to secure patientsʼ safety by the scientific pharmacovigilance plan with the international standard. It is an urgent task to discuss what plan is feasible in Japan and how to make the corporation of industry-government-academia a reality. (Jpn J Pharmacoepidemiol 2012; 17 (1): 55-66)

A Task Force team consisting of members from pharmaceutical companies --a central player to develop and implement RMP (Risk Management Plan)-- as well as health care professionals and members from academia was established in JSPE. The Task Force developed guidance for scientific approach to practical and ICH-E2E-compliant Pharmacovigilance Plan (PVP) stated in Japanese Risk Management Plan issued in April 2012 by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The guidance contains the following topics.
1．Introduction: JSPE's activities and this task force's objectives for pharmacovigilance activities
2．How to select Safety Specification (SS) and describe its characteristics
・Selection of SS
・Characterization of SS
・Association with Research Questions (RQ)
3．How to define and describe RQ
・What is RQ ?
・RQ interpretation in other relevant guidelines
・Methodology to develop RQ for PVP with examples
・Best approach to integrating PVP for whole aspects of safety concern
4．How to optimize PVP for specific RQ
・Routine PVP or additional PVP ?
・Additional PVP design (RQ and study design, RQ structured with PICO or GPP's research objectives, specific aims, and rationale)
・Checklist to help develop PVP
5．Epilogue:
・What can/should be “Drug use investigation” in the context of ICH-E2E-compliant PVP.
・Significance of background incidence rate and needs for comparator group
・Infrastructure for the future PVP activities
6．Appendix: Checklist to help develop PVP activities in RMP
The task force team is hoping that this guidance help develop and conduct SS and PVP in accordance with ICH E2E, as stated in Japanese Risk Management Plan Guideline.

In accordance with the new model-core-curriculum for medical education, the current status of education about the science of radiation health was surveyed in all medical schools in Japan. Among the four learning points related to the “Biological effects of radiation and radiation hazards” , about half of the schools covered issues on “radiation and human body” and the “effect of medical radiation exposure” in one, or less than one, 60-minutes class, but did not touch on “radiation risk communication” and “radiological disaster medicine” . A significant deviation of human resources was also observed between schools. Learning tools such as presentation files and video content were preferred as education support materials. Therefore, development and distribution of the learning tools, especially in “radiation risk communication” and “radiological disaster medicine” , may be a first step to promoting high-quality education on the science of radiation health risk in each school’s curriculum.