Search

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.

Background The PROTECT Benefit–Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit–risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. Methods A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit–risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. Results Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit–risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. Conclusion We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit–risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience–visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit–risk analysis information. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction The conduct of structured benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of pharmaceutical products is a key area of interest for regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. However, the acceptance of a standardized approach and implementation are slow. Statisticians play major roles in these organizations, and have a great opportunity to be involved and drive the shaping of future BRA. Method We performed a literature search of recent reviews and initiatives assessing BRA methodologies, and grouped them to assist those new to BRA in learning, understanding, and choosing methodologies. We summarized the key points and discussed the impact of this emerging field on various stakeholders, particularly statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry. Results We provide introductory, essential, special interest, and further information and initiatives materials that direct readers to the most relevant materials, which were published between 2000 and 2013. Based on recommendations in these materials we supply a toolkit of advocated BRA methodologies. Discussion Despite initiatives promoting these methodologies, there are still barriers, one of which being the lack of a consensus on the most appropriate methodologies among stakeholders. However, this opens up opportunities, for statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry especially, to champion appropriate BRA methodology use throughout the pharmaceutical product lifecycle. Conclusions This article may serve as a starting point for discussions and to reach a mutual consensus for methodology selection in a particular situation. Regulators and pharmaceutical industry should continue to collaborate to develop and take forward BRA methodologies, and by clear communication develop a mutual understanding of the key issues. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

While benefit-risk assessment is a key component of the drug development and maintenance process, it is often described in a narrative. In contrast, structured benefit-risk assessment builds on established ideas from decision analysis and comprises a qualitative framework and quantitative methodology. We compare two such frameworks, applying multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) within the PrOACT-URL framework and weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB), within the BRAT framework. These are applied to a case study of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. We focus on the practical considerations of applying these methods and give recommendations for visual presentation of results. In the case study, we found structured benefit-risk analysis to be a useful tool for structuring, quantifying, and communicating the relative benefit and safety profiles of drugs in a transparent, rational and consistent way. The two frameworks were similar. MCDA is a generic and flexible methodology that can be used to perform a structured benefit-risk in any common context. wNCB is a special case of MCDA and is shown to be equivalent to an extension of the number needed to treat (NNT) principle. It is simpler to apply and understand than MCDA and can be applied when all outcomes are measured on a binary scale.

PURPOSE: Difficulties may be encountered when undertaking a benefit-risk assessment for an older product with well-established use but with a benefit-risk balance that may have changed over time. This case study investigates this specific situation by applying a formal benefit-risk framework to assess the benefit-risk balance of warfarin for primary prevention of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We used the qualitative framework BRAT as the starting point of the benefit-risk analysis, bringing together the relevant available evidence. We explored the use of a quantitative method (stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis) to demonstrate how uncertainties and preferences on multiple criteria can be integrated into a single measure to reduce cognitive burden and increase transparency in decision making. RESULTS: Our benefit-risk model found that warfarin is favourable compared with placebo for the primary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. This favourable benefit-risk balance is fairly robust to differences in preferences. The probability of a favourable benefit-risk for warfarin against placebo is high (0.99) in our model despite the high uncertainty of randomised clinical trial data. In this case study, we identified major challenges related to the identification of relevant benefit-risk criteria and taking into account the diversity and quality of evidence available to inform the benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The main challenges in applying formal methods for medical benefit-risk assessment for a marketed drug are related to outcome definitions and data availability. Data exist from many different sources (both randomised clinical trials and observational studies), and the variability in the studies is large. Copyright � 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. Methods A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. Results We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. Conclusions Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Human pancreatic polypeptide (hPP) is a natural pancreatic hormone that suppresses appetite after meals. • When exogenous hPP is given to healthy human volunteers, it causes a reduction in food intake. • PP 1420 is a longer acting analogue of hPP that has been developed as a novel treatment for obesity. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • PP 1420 has been shown to be well tolerated in healthy human volunteers. • PP 1420 has been shown to have an extended terminal elimination half-life compared with hPP. AIMS The objectives of this phase 1 study were to confirm the tolerability of single ascending subcutaneous doses of PP 1420 in healthy subjects, to assess its adverse effects and to investigate the drug's pharmacokinetics and dose proportionality. METHODS This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. There were three dosing periods. Each subject (n= 12) was randomized to receive one dose of placebo and two ascending doses of PP 1420, given as a subcutaneous injection. Blood samples were taken over 24 h to assess pharmacokinetics. Standard safety and laboratory data were collected. The primary endpoint was the tolerability of PP 1420. The secondary endpoint was exposure to PP 1420 as assessed by Cmax and AUC(0,∞). RESULTS PP 1420 was well tolerated by all subjects with no serious adverse effects. Following single subcutaneous doses of PP 1420 at 2, 4 and 8 mg to male subjects, Cmax was reached at a median tmax of approximately 1 h post dose (range 0.32–2.00 h). Thereafter, plasma concentrations of PP 1420 declined with geometric mean apparent terminal elimination t1/2 ranging from 2.42–2.61 h (range 1.64–3.95 h) across all dose levels. CONCLUSIONS Subcutaneous PP 1420 was well tolerated in healthy human subjects at single doses between 2–8 mg, with no tolerability issues arising. Where observed, adverse events were not serious, and there was no evidence of a dose-relationship to frequency of adverse events. The results therefore support the conduct of clinical trials to investigate efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics during repeated dosing.

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with cumulative flying time remains uncertain. In a case-control study in general practices throughout the UK, participants comprised 550 VTE cases identified from practice records and 1971 age- and gender-matched controls. Participants returned identical questionnaires asking for information including air travel details. Compared to not flying, cumulative flying time >12 h within the previous 4 weeks was associated with a threefold increase in the risk of VTE [odds ratio (OR) 2·75, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·44-5·28]. Those who had flown >4 h in a single leg in the previous 4 weeks had twice the risk of VTE (OR 2·20, 95% CI, 1·29-3·73). These risks were no longer evident by 12 weeks and were similar to those of day-case or minor surgery (OR 5·35, 95% CI, 2·15-13·33). Equivalent risks for moderate and high-risk surgery were over 30-fold (OR 36·57, 95% CI, 13·05-102·52) and 140-fold (OR 141·71, 95% CI, 19·38-1036·01) respectively. The temporary nature of the association of cumulative and long-haul air travel with VTE suggests a causal relationship. The risks of VTE in those with a higher baseline risk due to surgery, previous VTE or obesity are further increased by air travel.

Purpose The effect of influenza vaccination on oral anticoagulant control is uncertain but important to establish since anticoagulants are widely used and most patients taking them are candidates for immunisation because of age or underlying cardiac disease. We therefore prospectively evaluated the effect of influenza vaccination on International Normalised Ratio (INR) control in patients on long-term warfarin. Methods We undertook a prospective audit of patients on long-term warfarin attending a single hospital anticoagulant clinic who reported receiving influenza vaccination within the 10 days prior to a clinic visit. We compared the stability of anticoagulant control in the 12 months prior to and 10 days after immunisation, restricting analysis to those patients whose warfarin dosage was unchanged before and after vaccination. Results Of 106 consecutive patients who reported receiving influenza vaccination within the 10 days prior to a clinic visit, results were evaluable in 78 because the dose of warfarin was unchanged before and after vaccination. Influenza immunisation had no apparent effect on anticoagulant control. No bleeding or thrombotic complications were reported. Conclusions Our findings suggest that it is not necessary to routinely monitor the INR more closely after influenza vaccination. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.