EU PV Regulatory Intelligence news: EU Commission Implementing Regulation 2025/1466 Other
guides

PSUR, PBRER, DSUR and RMP Requirements

Understand PSUR, PBRER, DSUR and RMP requirements, reporting inputs and review responsibilities. Get specialist pharmacovigilance writing support.

Periodic and lifecycle safety documents do more than summarise data. They show regulators how the available evidence changes the product's benefit-risk profile and what action the sponsor or marketing authorisation holder will take.

In the EU, the applicable document, data lock point, submission route and timetable depend on the product's development stage, authorisations and regulatory commitments. PSUR is the EU regulatory term for periodic post-authorisation reporting; PBRER is the ICH format and content standard used for periodic benefit-risk evaluation. A DSUR covers an investigational product in clinical development, while an RMP defines safety concerns and the activities used to characterise and minimise risk.

Request a 30 min call

Which safety document do you need?

Document Lifecycle stage Primary purpose Key scheduling reference
PSUR Post-authorisation Periodic evaluation of new safety information in the context of benefits and cumulative product knowledge EU Reference Dates list, marketing authorisation conditions or applicable national requirements
PBRER Post-authorisation ICH structure for an integrated periodic benefit-risk evaluation International Birth Date and the reporting interval defined for the report
DSUR Clinical development Annual review of cumulative safety information for an investigational product across the development programme Development International Birth Date
RMP Initial authorisation and throughout the product lifecycle Describe important safety concerns, pharmacovigilance activities and risk-minimisation measures Initial MAA and subsequent regulatory or safety-driven updates
Addendum to the Clinical Overview Late development or MAA preparation, when applicable Present relevant new clinical information arising after the main dossier data cut-off Submission strategy and authority expectations for the application

The table is a starting point, not a submission calendar. The final requirement must be confirmed against the product's authorisation status, the current EURD list, applicable procedures and authority correspondence.

PSUR and PBRER: periodic benefit-risk evaluation after authorisation

A PSUR should evaluate relevant new safety information against the product's existing safety profile and authorised use. It is not an ICSR listing or a collection of disconnected departmental summaries.

The report should bring together the information needed to answer three questions:

  1. What relevant safety and use information became available during the reporting interval?
  2. Does that information change the understanding of identified risks, potential risks, missing information or the overall benefit-risk balance?
  3. Is any regulatory, pharmacovigilance or risk-minimisation action required?

Inputs commonly include:

  • worldwide marketing-authorisation status;
  • actions taken for safety reasons;
  • changes to reference safety information;
  • estimated patient exposure and use patterns;
  • interval and cumulative ICSR summaries;
  • findings from clinical studies, literature and non-interventional data;
  • completed, ongoing and closed signals;
  • risk evaluation and effectiveness of risk-minimisation measures;
  • relevant effectiveness or benefit information;
  • an integrated benefit-risk analysis;
  • conclusions and proposed actions.

The EURD list determines more than frequency

For active substances included in the EU Reference Dates list, the list specifies the data lock point, submission frequency and submission date. It is legally binding and can override a standard cycle or frequency stated in individual marketing authorisations.

The EURD list is updated regularly. The responsible team should confirm the current entry before planning each report rather than relying on the previous cycle.

View EMA's current PSUR and EURD guidance

DSUR: cumulative safety during clinical development

The DSUR provides an annual review of safety information for an investigational product. Its focus is the protection of clinical-trial participants and the continuing assessment of whether the development programme remains appropriately managed from a safety perspective.

A DSUR brings together information across the sponsor's relevant clinical development programme, including:

  • the status of ongoing and completed trials;
  • cumulative subject exposure;
  • interval and cumulative serious adverse reaction information;
  • important findings from clinical and non-clinical sources;
  • new or ongoing safety signals;
  • changes to the Investigator's Brochure or reference safety information;
  • actions taken for safety reasons;
  • an overall safety assessment and proposed actions.

The DSUR is generally annual and is anchored to the Development International Birth Date. The submission route and recipient authorities depend on the applicable clinical-trial framework and territories.

View the ICH E2F DSUR guideline

RMP: connect safety concerns with planned action

An EU Risk Management Plan describes what is known and not yet known about the medicine's safety profile and how risks will be further characterised or minimised.

An RMP may include:

  • the safety specification;
  • routine and additional pharmacovigilance activities;
  • routine and additional risk-minimisation measures;
  • plans for evaluating the effectiveness of risk-minimisation measures;
  • product-specific milestones and commitments.

RMP content should remain consistent with the clinical dossier, product information, signal evaluations and other safety documents. An update may be needed when new information materially changes the safety profile, when the risk-management system changes or when requested by a competent authority.

View EMA's RMP guidance

The reporting process needs named owners

Activity Accountable or contributing function
Confirm requirement, data lock point and submission route Regulatory affairs with pharmacovigilance input
Define the report strategy and source-data plan Pharmacovigilance report lead and medical reviewer
Provide ICSR, signal and compliance data PV operations, signal management and quality
Provide exposure, clinical and benefit information Clinical, medical, epidemiology, commercial or data functions as applicable
Draft and reconcile the report Qualified pharmacovigilance medical writer
Perform medical and benefit-risk review Appropriately qualified medical reviewer
Perform quality-control and consistency checks Independent quality reviewer
Approve and submit Sponsor or MAH according to the approved governance model

Outsourcing authoring does not outsource sponsor or MAH accountability. The organisation should approve the data sources, review model, conclusions and final submission.

A practical reporting-readiness check

Before drafting starts, confirm that:

  • the current regulatory requirement and data lock point are documented;
  • the reporting period is consistent across all source functions;
  • reference safety information and product information versions are controlled;
  • exposure methodology and data owners are agreed;
  • signal records are current and reconciled;
  • important risks and missing information use consistent terminology across the PSUR, RMP and product information;
  • clinical, literature, ICSR and regulatory data owners understand their deadlines;
  • medical review, quality review, approval and submission responsibilities are named;
  • the final report and working records will be archived with a traceable audit trail.

How NextPV can support the reporting lifecycle

NextPV can support a complete report or a defined part of the process, including:

  • requirement and submission-planning review;
  • source-data and contributor planning;
  • PSUR/PBRER and DSUR authoring;
  • RMP preparation and updates;
  • Addendum to the Clinical Overview support;
  • medical and benefit-risk review;
  • quality-control and cross-document consistency review;
  • response support during authority assessment;
  • process, template and SOP development.

Our role is to make the document scientifically coherent, operationally traceable and consistent with the product's wider safety story.

Related NextPV guidance

Discuss your reporting needs

Share the product stage, required document, expected data lock point and current authoring model. We will help identify the inputs, reviewers and decisions needed for a controlled reporting process.

Request a 30 min call

Prepared and reviewed by the NextPV Pharmacovigilance Team · Updated July 2026