Recommendations for benefit–risk assessment methodologies and visual representations

Abstract

Word count: 3,668 without Acknowledgements or 4,089 with Acknowledgements Key messages Formal and transparent discussion of multiple viewpoints, interests and priorities facilitates mutual understanding of complex decision problems  Benefit-risk assessments of treatments should be undertaken in a structured way so that it is clear how a decision on the overall balance of a treatment's effects has been reached  Various structured approaches and singular methodologies/visual representations are available to support benefit-risk assessment of medicines, but so far universal agreement as to the most suitable method for structured benefit-risk assessment has been lacking  A team combining expertise from public and private institutions carried out a review of benefit-risk methods and visual representations, including application of the tools to case studies based on real regulatory scenarios  The project produced a clear set of practical recommendations for undertaking benefit-risk assessments, organised around a generic, five stage benefit-risk assessment roadmap /2007-2013) and EFPIA companies' in kind contribution.The processes described and conclusions drawn from the work presented herein relate solely to the testing of methodologies and representations for the evaluation of benefit and risk of medicines. This report neither replaces nor is intended to replace or comment on any regulatory decisions made by national regulatory agencies, nor the European Medicines Agency.The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: Dr Hughes has been employed by Pfizer Inc. for the duration of the project. Mr Downey reports that he is an employee of Amgen, a participant in the Innovative Medicines Initiative, which is a public-private partnership. The manuscript describes testing benefit-risk methodologies and visualizations using case studies of marketed products. No Amgen treatments were used in the work associated with this publication. Dr Juhaeri is an employee of Sanofi, the producer of rimonabant and telithromycin, which were used in the PROTECT project as case studies. Dr Juhaeri declares that he is an employee or Sanofi, the manufacturer of rimonabant which was studied in this project. Mr Lieftucht reports that he is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline, a participant in the Innovative Medicines Initiative, which is a public-private partnership. One of the case studies described in the manuscript is a GSK product but Mr Lieftucht did not work on that case study. Dr Metcalf reports that she is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline, a participant in the Innovative Medicines Initiative, which is a publicprivate partnership. One of the case studies described in the manuscript is a GSK product but Dr Metcalf did not work on that case study. 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. MethodsEight case studies based on the benefit-risk balance of real medicines were ...

Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

“…A collaborative project called The Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European Consortium (PROTECT) under the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) explored, in part, how preferences on benefits and risks might feed into the decision making process [23]. Their recommendations put forward DCEs as the ''utility survey technique'' that warrants further testing [23].…”

Pigeonholes and Mustard Seeds: Growing Capacity to use Data for Society

“…Advances in trial methodology, such as the development of cluster-randomized trials, enable the testing of interventions best randomized at a group level (Eldridge et al, 2008;Hemming et al, 2017) whereas the emergence of adaptive trials makes efficient use of scarce resources, be they time, enough patients to go into the trial or cost of the trial (Bhatt and Mehta, 2016). Within regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies there is interest in more rigorous ways of making decisions about the licensing of medicines, drawing on well-understood, but less well-used, statistical principles, in combination with other skill sets (Hughes et al, 2016).…”

MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit‐risk preferences: a critical assessment

“…This paper reports a qualitative comparison of 2 methods, DCE and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) swing weighting (SW). We have chosen to compare these 2 methods, because they are among the most recommended methods for eliciting benefit‐risk preference trade‐offs and guidelines exist for their use . We recognize that other methods do exist, such as the hybrid method piloted by the European Medicines Agency and best‐worst scaling .…”

“…We have chosen to compare these 2 methods, because they are among the most recommended methods for eliciting benefit-risk preference trade-offs 13,14 and guidelines exist for their use. 6,[15][16][17] We recognize that other methods do exist, such as the hybrid method piloted by the European Medicines Agency 3 and best-worst scaling.…”