Recommendations for benefit–risk assessment methodologies and visual representations§
This manuscript contains material previously published in reports on the IMI PROTECT website at http://www.imi‐protect.eu/benefitsRep.shtml and on the PROTECT BR website at http://protectbenefitrisk.eu/
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials.
If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, Please log in.
If you previously purchased this article, Log in to Readcube.
You previously purchased this article on READCUBE_PURCHASE_DATE. Click on an option below to access.
Logged in as READCUBE_USER. Log out of ReadCube.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit–risk assessment.
Methods
Eight case studies based on the benefit–risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit–risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies.
Results
A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination.
Conclusions
Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit–risk assessment was feasible in real‐world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision‐making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real‐world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit–risk assessment from multiple perspectives. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 10
- Patrick Vermersch, Vittorio Martinelli, Claudia Pfleger, Peter Rieckmann, Lucia Alonso-Magdalena, Andrew Galazka, Fernando Dangond and Lawrence Phillips, Benefit-risk Assessment of Cladribine Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for Patients With Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis, Clinical Therapeutics, 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.12.015, 41, 2, (249-260.e18), (2019).
- Ole Rogeberg, Daniel Bergsvik, Lawrence D. Phillips, Jan van Amsterdam, Niamh Eastwood, Graeme Henderson, Micheal Lynskey, Fiona Measham, Rhys Ponton, Steve Rolles, Anne Katrin Schlag, Polly Taylor and David Nutt, A new approach to formulating and appraising drug policy: A multi-criterion decision analysis applied to alcohol and cannabis regulation, International Journal of Drug Policy, 10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.01.019, 56, (144-152), (2018).
- David John Mott, Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9, 11, 3, (249-252), (2018).
- Xavier Kurz, Advancing regulatory science, advancing regulatory practice, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 26, 6, (722-726), (2017).
- Tommi Tervonen, Heather Gelhorn, Sumitra Sri Bhashyam, Jiat‐Ling Poon, Katharine S. Gries, Anne Rentz and Kevin Marsh, MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit‐risk preferences: a critical assessment, Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 26, 12, (1483-1491), (2017).
- David Spiegelhalter, Risk and Uncertainty Communication, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148, 4, 1, (31-60), (2017).
- Meredith Y. Smith, Isma Benattia, Carmit Strauss, Laura Bloss and Qi Jiang, Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Across the Product Lifecycle, Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 10.1177/2168479017696272, 51, 4, (501-508), (2017).
- Gaelle Saint-Hilary, Veronique Robert, Mauro Gasparini, Thomas Jaki and Pavel Mozgunov, A novel measure of drug benefit–risk assessment based on Scale Loss Score, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280218786526, (096228021878652), (2018).
- Matthew Reaney, Elizabeth Bush, Mary New, Jean Paty, Aude Roborel de Climens, Soren E. Skovlund, Linda Nelsen, Emuella Flood and Adam Gater, The Potential Role of Individual-Level Benefit-Risk Assessment in Treatment Decision Making, Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 10.1177/2168479018807448, (216847901880744), (2018).
- C Chouaid, N Germain, G De Pouvourville, S Aballéa, D Korchagina, M Baldwin, K Le Lay, L Luciani, M Toumi and P Devillier, Patient preference for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) treatment inhalers: A discrete choice experiment in France, Current Medical Research and Opinion, 10.1080/03007995.2019.1574507, (1-1), (2019).
