Vicki Osborne 1,2 , Miranda Davies 3,2 , Debabrata Roy 3,2 , Francesco Tescione 4 , Saad A W Shakir 3,2 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior to approval in the European Union, a systematic benefit-risk assessment was required to compare buprenorphine implant to sublingual buprenorphine as part of the license application to the European Medicines Agency. OBJECTIVE: The Benefit-Risk Action Team framework was used to describe the overall benefit-risk of buprenorphine implant in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS: A value tree of key benefits and risks related to the implant formulation of buprenorphine was constructed. Risk differences (RD) or reporting ORs (ROR) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for each outcome, along with the number needed to treat and number needed to harm. Swing weighting was assigned to outcomes and the weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB) was calculated. FINDINGS: Key benefits assessed: reduced risk of illicit opioid use (RD=0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17), reduced risk of misuse and diversion (ROR=0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94), improved compliance and convenience (RD=0.20) and quality of life measures (RD=0.03). Key risks assessed: clinically significant implant breakage (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01), migration/missing implant (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02), infection at insertion/removal site (RD=0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12) and implant-related allergic reaction (RD=0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11). The wNCB for buprenorphine implant was 4.96, which suggests a favourable benefit-risk profile. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implant is considered favourable in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine, based on this semiquantitative analysis using available data. Further data from real-world use on benefits and risks should be used for ongoing monitoring of the benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implants in the postmarketing setting. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
BACKGROUND: Prior to approval in the European Union, a systematic benefit-risk assessment was required to compare buprenorphine implant to sublingual buprenorphine as part of the license application to the European Medicines Agency. OBJECTIVE: The Benefit-Risk Action Team framework was used to describe the overall benefit-risk of buprenorphine implant in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine . STUDY SELECTION/METHODS: A value tree of key benefits and risks related to the implant formulation of buprenorphine was constructed. Risk differences (RD) or reporting ORs (ROR) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for each outcome, along with the number needed to treat and number needed to harm. Swing weighting was assigned to outcomes and the weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB) was calculated. FINDINGS: Key benefits assessed: reduced risk of illicit opioid use (RD=0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17), reduced risk of misuse and diversion (ROR=0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.94), improved compliance and convenience (RD=0.20) and quality of life measures (RD=0.03). Key risks assessed: clinically significant implant breakage (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01), migration/missing implant (RD=0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02), infection at insertion/removal site (RD=0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12) and implant-related allergic reaction (RD=0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11). The wNCB for buprenorphine implant was 4.96, which suggests a favourable benefit-risk profile. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implant is considered favourable in comparison to sublingual buprenorphine , based on this semiquantitative analysis using available data. Further data from real-world use on benefits and risks should be used for ongoing monitoring of the benefit-risk profile of buprenorphine implants in the postmarketing setting. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Entities: Chemical
Disease
Species
Keywords:
public health; substance misuse
Year: 2020
PMID： 32094200 DOI： 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Evid Based Med ISSN： 2515-446X