PURPOSE: To explore the current status and need for a universal benefit-risk framework for medicines in regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and sent to 14 mature regulatory agencies and 24 major companies. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, for a minority of questions preceded by manual grouping of the responses. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 82%, and study participants included key decision makers from agencies and companies. None used a fully quantitative system, most companies preferring a qualitative method. The major reasons for this group not using semi-quantitative or quantitative systems were lack of a universal and scientifically validated framework. The main advantages of a benefit-risk framework were that it provided a systematic standardised approach to decision-making and that it acted as a tool to enhance quality of communication. It was also reported that a framework should be of value to both agencies and companies throughout the life cycle of a product. They believed that it is possible to develop an overarching benefit-risk framework that should involve relevant stakeholders in the development, validation and application of a universal framework. The entire cohort indicated common barriers to implementing a framework were resource limitations, a lack of knowledge and a scientifically validated and acceptable framework. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders prefer a semi-quantitative, overarching framework that incorporates a toolbox of different methodologies. A coordinating committee of relevant stakeholders should be formed to guide its development and implementation. Through engaging the stakeholders, these outcomes confirm sentiments and need for developing a universal benefit-risk assessment framework.
PURPOSE: To explore the current status and need for a universal benefit-risk framework for medicines in regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and sent to 14 mature regulatory agencies and 24 major companies. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, for a minority of questions preceded by manual grouping of the responses. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 82%, and study participants included key decision makers from agencies and companies. None used a fully quantitative system, most companies preferring a qualitative method. The major reasons for this group not using semi-quantitative or quantitative systems were lack of a universal and scientifically validated framework. The main advantages of a benefit-risk framework were that it provided a systematic standardised approach to decision-making and that it acted as a tool to enhance quality of communication. It was also reported that a framework should be of value to both agencies and companies throughout the life cycle of a product. They believed that it is possible to develop an overarching benefit-risk framework that should involve relevant stakeholders in the development, validation and application of a universal framework. The entire cohort indicated common barriers to implementing a framework were resource limitations, a lack of knowledge and a scientifically validated and acceptable framework. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders prefer a semi-quantitative, overarching framework that incorporates a toolbox of different methodologies. A coordinating committee of relevant stakeholders should be formed to guide its development and implementation. Through engaging the stakeholders, these outcomes confirm sentiments and need for developing a universal benefit-risk assessment framework.