Diana Hughes1, Ed Waddingham2, Shahrul Mt-Isa2, Alesia Goginsky3, Edmond Chan4, Gerald F Downey5, Christine E Hallgreen2,6, Kimberley S Hockley2, Juhaeri Juhaeri7, Alfons Lieftucht8, Marilyn A Metcalf9, Rebecca A Noel10, Lawrence D Phillips11, Deborah Ashby2, Alain Micaleff12. 1. Worldwide Safety Strategy, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA. 2. Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Pfizer, New York, NY, USA. 4. Oncology Signal Detection and Analytics Physician Team Lead, Division of Janssen-Cilag Ltd, Johnson & Johnson, Global Medical Organisation, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, UK. 5. Amgen Limited, Cambridge, UK. 6. Faculty of Health and Medical Science, Department of Pharmacy, CORS, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Pharmacoepidemiology, Global Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology, Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA. 8. Benefit-Risk Evaluation, RD Chief Medical Office, GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd, Uxbridge, UK. 9. Benefit-Risk Evaluation, US Safety Mgmt, RD Chief Medical Office, GSK, NC, USA. 10. Benefit-Risk Assessment, Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 11. Department of Management, London School of Economics, London, UK. 12. MerckSerono SA, Geneva, Switzerland.
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.
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.
Authors: Bethea A Kleykamp; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Zubin Bhagwagar; Penney Cowan; Christopher Eccleston; Susan S Ellenberg; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy L Freeman; Louis P Garrison; Jennifer S Gewandter; Veeraindar Goli; Smriti Iyengar; Alejandro R Jadad; Mark P Jensen; Roderick Junor; Nathaniel P Katz; J Patrick Kesslak; Ernest A Kopecky; Dmitri Lissin; John D Markman; Michael P McDermott; Philip J Mease; Alec B O'Connor; Kushang V Patel; Srinivasa N Raja; Michael C Rowbotham; Cristina Sampaio; Jasvinder A Singh; Ilona Steigerwald; Vibeke Strand; Leslie A Tive; Jeffrey Tobias; Ajay D Wasan; Hilary D Wilson Journal: Pain Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Christopher H Jackson; Gianluca Baio; Anna Heath; Mark Strong; Nicky J Welton; Edward C F Wilson Journal: Annu Rev Stat Appl Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 7.917
Authors: Gaelle Saint-Hilary; Veronique Robert; Mauro Gasparini; Thomas Jaki; Pavel Mozgunov Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Hugo Arlegui; Kaatje Bollaerts; Vincent Bauchau; Gaëlle Nachbaur; Bernard Bégaud; Nicolas Praet Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Aris Angelis; Mark Thursz; Vlad Ratziu; Alastair O'Brien; Lawrence Serfaty; Ali Canbay; Ingolf Schiefke; Joao Bana E Costa; Pascal Lecomte; Panos Kanavos Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Hugo Arlegui; Kaatje Bollaerts; Francesco Salvo; Vincent Bauchau; Gaëlle Nachbaur; Bernard Bégaud; Nicolas Praet Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.606