Search

Abstract Over the past decade, we have witnessed the development of cell transplantation as a new strategy for repairing spinal cord injury (SCI). However, due to the complexity of the central nervous system (CNS), achieving successful clinical translation remains a significant challenge. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUMSCs) possess distinct advantages, such as easy collection, lack of ethical concerns, high self-renewal ability, multilineage differentiation potential, and immunomodulatory properties. hUMSCs are promising for regenerating the injured spinal cord to a significant extent. At the same time, for advancing SCI treatment, the appropriate benefit and risk evaluation methods play a pivotal role in determining the clinical applicability of treatment plans. Hence, this study discusses the advantages and risks of hUMSCs in SCI treatment across four dimensions—comprehensive evaluation of motor and sensory function, imaging, electrophysiology, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) function—aiming to improve the rationality of relevant clinical research and the feasibility of clinical translation.

Over the past decade, we have witnessed the development of cell transplantation as a new strategy for repairing spinal cord injury (SCI). However, due to the complexity of the central nervous system (CNS), achieving successful clinical translation remains a significant challenge. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUMSCs) possess distinct advantages, such as easy collection, lack of ethical concerns, high self-renewal ability, multilineage differentiation potential, and immunomodulatory properties. hUMSCs are promising for regenerating the injured spinal cord to a significant extent. At the same time, for advancing SCI treatment, the appropriate benefit and risk evaluation methods play a pivotal role in determining the clinical applicability of treatment plans. Hence, this study discusses the advantages and risks of hUMSCs in SCI treatment across four dimensions—comprehensive evaluation of motor and sensory function, imaging, electrophysiology, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) function—aiming to improve the rationality of relevant clinical research and the feasibility of clinical translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what tradeoffs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clinicians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is mandated for patients receiving primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Less attention has been paid to generator exchange decisions, although at the time of generator exchange, patients' risk of sudden cardiac death, risk of procedural complications, quality of life, or prognosis may have changed. This study was designed to explore how patients make ICD generator exchange decisions. METHODS: Emory Healthcare patients with primary prevention ICDs implanted from 2013 to 2021 were recruited to complete in-depth interviews exploring perspectives regarding generator exchanges. Interviews were conducted in 2021. Transcribed interviews were qualitatively coded using multilevel template analytic methods. To investigate benefit thresholds for pursuing generator exchanges, patients were presented standard-gamble type hypothetical scenarios where their ICD battery was depleted but their 5-year risk of sudden cardiac death at that time varied (10%, 5%, and 1%). RESULTS: Fifty patients were interviewed; 18 had a prior generator exchange, 16 had received ICD therapy, and 17 had improved left ventricular ejection fraction. As sudden cardiac death risk decreased from 10% to 5% to 1%, the number of participants willing to undergo a generator exchange decreased from 48 to 42 to 33, respectively. Responses suggest that doctor's recommendations are likely to substantially impact patients' decision-making. Other drivers of decision-making included past experiences with ICD therapy and device implantation, as well as risk aversion. Therapeutic inertia and misconceptions about ICD therapy were common and represent substantive barriers to effective shared decision-making in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Strong defaults may exist to continue therapy and exchange ICD generators. Updated risk stratification may facilitate shared decision-making and reduce generator exchanges in very low-risk patients, especially if these interventions are directed toward clinicians. Interventions targeting phenomena such as therapeutic inertia may be more impactful and warrant exploration in randomized trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to evaluate the benefits and risks of traditional Chinese medicine preparations of sinomenine alone or in combination with conventional drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to provide a basis for the rational clinical application of sinomenine. Methods A study search was performed using six major databases, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for data analysis. Then, an MCDA model evaluation system was established for the treatment of RA with sinomenine preparations, and the benefit values, risk values, and total benefit-risk values of sinomenine preparations alone or in combination with conventional drugs were calculated using Hiview 3.2 software. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using Crystal Ball embedded in Excel software to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and the probability of the differences between the 2 drug regimens was determined to optimize the evaluation results. Results Forty-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Quantitative assessment of the MCDA model showed that the sinomenine preparation alone offered less benefits than when combined with conventional drugs with a benefit difference of 20 (95% CI 3.06, 35.71). However, the risk of the combination was significantly lower with a risk difference of 13(95% CI -10.26, 27.52). The total value of the benefit-risk of sinomenine alone and in combination with conventional drugs was 46 and 53 at 60% and 40% of the benefit-risk ratio of the two dosing regimens, respectively, with a difference of 7 (95% CI -4.26, 22.12). The probability that the comprehensive score of the combined regimen is greater than that of sinomenine alone is 90.1%, and the evaluation was steady. Conclusion The benefit-risk of the combined application regimen of sinomenine is greater than that of sinomenine alone.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making.Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022.Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators’ understanding of patients’ unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions.Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators’ experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts. • This report presents current expert consensus in emerging good practice for developing methodologically rigorous and fit-for-purpose quantitative benefit-risk assessments, together with a checklist to support their reporting. • We provide detailed recommendations on each of the 5 main steps of quantitative benefit-risk assessments: formulating the research question, choosing appropriate analysis models, evaluating the attribute sets and diagnosing any potential violations of model assumptions, choosing the appropriate methods to elicit the required preference weights, and communicating the results effectively. • For preference elicitation, we provide an overview of the 3 methods that are appropriate for eliciting outcome weighting: discrete choice experiments, threshold technique, and swing weighting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide medical device regulatory authorities increasingly rely on the benefit-risk ratio for decision-making. However, current benefit-risk assessment (BRA) methods are mostly descriptive, not quantitative. We aimed to summarize the regulatory requirements of BRA, discuss the feasibility of adopting multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and explore factors for optimizing the MCDA for quantitative BRA of devices. Regulatory organizations emphasize BRA in their guidance, and some recommend user-friendly worksheets to conduct qualitative/descriptive BRA. The MCDA is considered one of the most useful and relevant quantitative BRA methods by pharmaceutical regulatory agencies and the industry; the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research summarized the principles and good practice guidance of MCDA. We recommend optimizing the MCDA by considering the following unique characteristics of the device BRA: using data from state of the art as a control and clinical data from post-market surveillance and literature; considering the device's diverse characteristics when selecting controls; assigning weight according to type, magnitude/severity, and duration of benefits and risks; and including physician and patient opinions in the MCDA. This article is the first to explore using MCDA for device BRA and might lead to a novel quantitative BRA method for devices. Worldwide regulatory organizations for medical devices emphasize benefit–risk assessment (BRA) in their guidance and recommend qualitative or descriptive BRA approaches. However, no guidance has described any quantitative BRA method for medical devices. The multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method is considered the most useful and relevant quantitative BRA method for drugs by pharmaceutical regulatory agencies and industries. The principles of MCDA are described by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and lead to emerging good practice guidance on the implementation of MCDA to support healthcare decision-making. To optimize the MCDA method for the quantitative BRA of medical devices, we recommend considering the unique characteristics thereof; including using data from SOTA as a control; using additional clinical data from post-market surveillance and literature; considering the device's diverse characteristics when selecting a control; assigning weight according to the type, magnitude/severity, and duration of benefits and risks; and including both physician and patient opinions in the MCDA method. The medical device industry and device regulatory organizations could benefit from this article. A quantitative BRA tool can be developed based on our findings and can be used by agencies and companies to monitor the safety and effectiveness of medical devices throughout their life cycle. Future research should focus on developing these theoretical considerations into a user-friendly tool for the quantitative BRA of devices and the validation of such tools using different types of devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was used to evaluate the benefits and risks of traditional Chinese medicine preparations of sinomenine alone or in combination with conventional drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to provide a basis for the rational clinical application of sinomenine. Methods: A study search was performed using six major databases, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for data analysis. Then, an MCDA model evaluation system was established for the treatment of RA with sinomenine preparations, and the benefit values, risk values, and total benefit-risk values of sinomenine preparations alone or in combination with conventional drugs were calculated using Hiview 3.2 software. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using Crystal Ball embedded in Excel software to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and the probability of the differences between the 2 drug regimens was determined to optimize the evaluation results. Results: Forty-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Quantitative assessment of the MCDA model showed that the sinomenine preparation alone offered less benefits than when combined with conventional drugs with a benefit difference of 20 (95% CI 3.06, 35.71). However, the risk of the combination was significantly lower with a risk difference of 13(95% CI -10.26, 27.52). The total value of the benefit-risk of sinomenine alone and in combination with conventional drugs was 46 and 53 at 60% and 40% of the benefit-risk ratio of the two dosing regimens, respectively, with a difference of 7 (95% CI -4.26, 22.12). The probability that the comprehensive score of the combined regimen is greater than that of sinomenine alone is 90.1%, and the evaluation was steady. Conclusion: The benefit-risk of the combined application regimen of sinomenine is greater than that of sinomenine alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children frequently respond differently to therapies compared to adults. Differences also exist between paediatric age groups for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in both efficacy and safety. Paediatric pharmacovigilance requires an understanding of the unique aspects of children with regard to, for example, drug response, growth and development, clinical presentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), how they can be detected and population‐specific factors (e.g., more frequent use of off‐label/unlicensed drugs). In recognition of these challenges, a group of experts has been formed in the context of the conect4children (c4c) project to support paediatric drug development. This expert group collaborated to develop methodological considerations for paediatric drug safety and pharmacovigilance throughout the life‐cycle of medicinal products which are described in this article. These considerations include practical points to consider for the development of the paediatric section of the risk management plan (RMP), safety in paediatric protocol development, safety data collection and analysis. Furthermore, they describe the specific details of post‐marketing pharmacovigilance in children using, for example, spontaneous reports, electronic health care records, registries and record‐linkage, as well as the use of paediatric pharmacoepidemiology studies for risk characterisation. Next the details of the assessment of benefit–risk and challenges related to medicinal product formulation in the context of a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) are presented. Finally, practical issues in paediatric signal detection and evaluation are included. This paper provides practical points to consider for paediatric pharmacovigilance throughout the life‐cycle of medicinal products for RMPs, protocol development, safety data collection and analysis and PIPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Lifelong Antiretroviral Therapy (ARVT) in patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection damages cochlea. Hearing Loss (HL) has been reported with lamivudine therapy in both HIV and/or Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infections. Hence, the benefit of lamivudine therapy in individuals affected by these infections and risk of development of HL needs to be studied to make an adequate benefit-risk assessment. Aim: To evaluate the relationship of hearing impairment in patients treated with lamivudine and diagnosed with either HIV or HBV infection. Materials and Methods: The present study is a systematic review in which English-language publications that assessed HL in patients who are on lamivudine drug therapy were included. The types of studies included were: prospective studies, retrospective studies, case reports and case series. A comprehensive database search (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane review, Google scholar and Embase) was conducted to identify the relevant literature published on HL and were searched for keywords related to lamivudine and HL- 'lamivudine and hearing loss', 'lamivudine and deafness', 'lamivudine and hypoacusis', 'lamivudine and hearing impairment' and 'lamivudine and ototoxicity' for searching the data. The publications were independently reviewed and assessed for study quality and the data (title, author, year of publication, study design, study setting, population characteristics) extraction was done. Results: Out of 1,778 publications found at the initial stage, nine were included in the systematic review and quantitative metaanalysis. The majority (4/9) were cross-sectional studies. The prevalence of hearing impairment defined as per the protocol was 41% (total population 1,548). The I2 statistic was used to test statistical heterogeneity, with values of >50% representing important heterogeneity, then a random-effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed for the age group =18 years and >18 years. All analyses were conducted using the R software version 4.1.0. It was found that most of the studies (8/9) suffered moderateserious overall risk across all the domains of ROBINS-1 tool. Conclusion: This study showed a positive association of HL with lamivudine in patients with HIV infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Lifelong Antiretroviral Therapy (ARVT) in patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection damages cochlea. Hearing Loss (HL) has been reported with lamivudine therapy in both HIV and/or Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infections. Hence, the benefit of lamivudine therapy in individuals affected by these infections and risk of development of HL needs to be studied to make an adequate benefit-risk assessment. Aim: To evaluate the relationship of hearing impairment in patients treated with lamivudine and diagnosed with either HIV or HBV infection. Materials and Methods: The present study is a systematic review in which English-language publications that assessed HL in patients who are on lamivudine drug therapy were included. The types of studies included were: prospective studies, retrospective studies, case reports and case series. A comprehensive database search (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane review, Google scholar and Embase) was conducted to identify the relevant literature published on HL and were searched for keywords related to lamivudine and HL- ‘lamivudine and hearing loss’, ‘lamivudine and deafness’, ‘lamivudine and hypoacusis’, ‘lamivudine and hearing impairment’ and ’lamivudine and ototoxicity’ for searching the data. The publications were independently reviewed and assessed for study quality and the data (title, author, year of publication, study design, study setting, population characteristics) extraction was done. Results: Out of 1,778 publications found at the initial stage, nine were included in the systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. The majority (4/9) were cross-sectional studies. The prevalence of hearing impairment defined as per the protocol was 41% (total population 1,548). The I2 statistic was used to test statistical heterogeneity, with values of >50% representing important heterogeneity, then a random-effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed for the age group ≤18 years and >18 years. All analyses were conducted using the R software version 4.1.0. It was found that most of the studies (8/9) suffered moderate-serious overall risk across all the domains of ROBINS-1 tool. Conclusion: This study showed a positive association of HL with lamivudine in patients with HIV infection.

Objective: Demonstrate how benefit‐risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference. Study design and setting: This study used a multimethod benefit‐risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate‐to‐severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta‐analysis of opioid dependence and a long‐term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment. Results: Lower‐dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit‐risk score (0.901), followed by higher‐dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower‐dose NGFi was the highest‐ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit‐risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25‐0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19‐0.23 for NSAIDs). Conclusion: The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit‐risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post‐approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown. Methods: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006–2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post‐approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses. Results: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post‐approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P =.31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57–3.4). Conclusion: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area. Methods: We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis. Results: We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is difficult to treat. Several oral drugs are recommended as first-line treatments. Nevertheless, many patients cannot obtain sufficient pain relief or do not tolerate systemically active treatments. Topical treatments, with a lower risk of systemic side effects such as lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster, are also recommended in treatment guidelines. This analysis compares the benefit–risk balance of topical 700 mg lidocaine medicated plaster with the benefit–risk balance of oral pregabalin administration for the treatment of PNP following current recommendations on benefit–risk assessment (BRA) methodology. Methods: The Benefit–Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used as structured approach. Selection of key benefits and risks was supported by a patient survey. Published randomized controlled clinical trials were the main source to identify data related to key benefits and risks. The outcome of randomized clinical trials was compared with real-world evidence (RWE) data for consistency. Results: Identified key benefits were pain reduction and improvement in quality of life. Key risks identified were application site reactions, dizziness, confusion, weight gain, peripheral edema, and blurred vision. Overall, there was similarity in key benefits between the comparators; however, a clear advantage regarding key risks in favor of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was observed. This observation was consistent across data from a direct comparison trial, randomized placebo-controlled trials, as well as data from RWE studies. The low number of randomized controlled trials for lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was the main limitation. Conclusion: Guided by the opinion of patients regarding key benefits and risks deemed important for treatments of peripheral neuropathic pain, our analysis showed that lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster has a more favorable benefit–risk balance compared to pregabalin (300 and 600 mg daily). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit–risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk–benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA). Methods: Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria—PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles. Results: UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7–12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9–16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9–15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA. Conclusion: In patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area. Methods: We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis. Results: We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer.

Abstract Background Health risks linked with dioxin in fish remain a complex policy issue. Fatty Baltic fish contain persistent pollutants, but they are otherwise healthy food. We studied the health benefits and risks associated with Baltic herring and salmon in four countries to identify critical uncertainties and to facilitate an evidence-based discussion. Methods We performed an online survey investigating consumers’ fish consumption and its motivation in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. Dioxin and methylmercury concentrations were estimated based on Finnish studies. Exposure-response functions for several health endpoints were evaluated and quantified based on the scientific literature. We also quantified the infertility risk of men based on a recent European risk assessment estimating childhood dioxin exposure and its effect on sperm concentration later in life. Results Baltic herring and salmon contain omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D, and the beneficial impact of these fishes on cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and the risk of depression and cancer clearly outweighs risks of dioxins and methylmercury in people older than 45 years of age and in young men. Young women may expose their children to pollutants during pregnancy and breast feeding. This study suggests that even in this critical subgroup, the risks are small and the health benefits are greater than or at least similar to the health risks. Value of information analysis demonstrated that the remaining scientific uncertainties are not large. In contrast, there are several critical uncertainties that are inherently value judgements, such as whether exceeding the tolerable weekly intake is an adverse outcome as such; and whether or not subgroup-specific restrictions are problematic. Conclusions The potential health risks attributable to dioxins in Baltic fish have more than halved in the past 10 years. The new risk assessment issued by the European Food Safety Authority clearly increases the fraction of the population exceeding the tolerable dioxin intake, but nonetheless, quantitative estimates of net health impacts change only marginally. Increased use of small herring (which have less pollutants) is a no-regret option. A more relevant value-based policy discussion rather than research is needed to clarify official recommendations related to dioxins in fish.

Background: The potential value of patient preference studies has been recognized in clinical individual treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients, as well as in upstream drug decision-making. Drug developers, regulators, reimbursement and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are exploring how the use of patient preference studies could inform drug development, regulatory benefit risk-assessment and reimbursement decisions respectively. Understanding patient preferences may be especially valuable in decisions regarding Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment options, where a variety of treatment options with different characteristics raise uncertainty about which features are most important to NSCLC patients. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, this qualitative study aimed to identify patient-relevant lung cancer treatment characteristics.Methods: This study consisted of a scoping literature review and four focus group discussions, 2 in Italy and 2 in Belgium, with a total of 24 NSCLC patients (Stages III-IV). The focus group discussions sought to identify which treatment characteristics patients find most relevant. The discussions were analyzed thematically using a thematic inductive analysis.Results: Patients highlighted themes reflecting: 1) positive effects or expected gains from treatment such as greater life expectancy and maintenance of daily functioning, 2) negative effects or adverse events related to therapy that negatively impact patients’ daily functioning such as fatigue and 3) uncertainty regarding the duration and type of treatment effects. These overarching themes were consistent among patients from Belgium and Italy, suggesting that treatment aspects related to efficacy and safety as well as the psychological impact of lung cancer treatment are common areas of concern for patients, regardless of cultural background or country.Discussion: Our findings illustrate the value of using qualitative methods with patients to identify preferred treatment characteristics for advanced lung cancer. These could inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding treatment options.

The recent benefit–risk framework (BRF) developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is intended to improve the clarity and consistency in communicating the reasoning behind the FDA's decisions, acting as an important advancement in US drug regulation. In the PDUFA VI implementation plan, the FDA states that it will continue to explore more structured or quantitative decision analysis approaches; however, it restricts their use within the current BRF that is purely qualitative. By contrast, European regulators and researchers have been long exploring the use of quantitative decision analysis approaches for evaluating drug benefit–risk balance. In this paper, we show how quantitative modelling, backed by decision theory, could complement and extend the FDA's BRF to better support the appraisal of evidence and improve decision outcomes. After providing relevant scientific definitions for benefit–risk assessment and describing the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) frameworks, we explain the components of and differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches. We present lessons learned from the EMA experience with the use of quantitative modelling and we provide evidence of its benefits, illustrated by a real case study that helped to resolve differences of judgements among EMA regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background/Objectives: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assessing safety (risks) and effectiveness (benefits) of new drug products using the data provided in a Sponsor’s new drug product marketing application before they can be marketed. The FDA forms cross-disciplinary review teams to conduct these assessments. Recently, the FDA began implementing more interdisciplinary approaches to its assessments, reducing redundancy in review processes and documentation by increasing team integration around review issues. Methods: Through a phenomenological descriptive comparative case study, the impact of FDA’s new interdisciplinary approach on review team integration was compared with its traditional multidisciplinary review approach. Results: We identified collaborative integration occurring in one FDA review team using the new interdisciplinary review and another team using the traditional review and then modeled and analyzed the collaborative, cross-disciplinary integration in each case using an input-process-output (IPO) model drawn from the Science-of-Team-Science (SciTS). Conclusion: This study provides a systematic method for understanding and visualizing integration in each type of review previously and presently used at FDA and illustrates how the new interdisciplinary approach can ensure more integration than more traditional approaches previously used. In addition, our study suggests that an IPO model of integration can characterize how effectively FDA review teams are integrating around issues and assist in the evaluation of differences in integration between FDA’s new interdisciplinary review and the existing multidisciplinary approach. The approach used here is a new application of SciTS scholarship in a unique sector, and it also serves as an example for measuring review team effectiveness.

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers—regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)—are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making.Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit–risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes.Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit–risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making.Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

The pace of innovation is accelerating, and so medicines regulators need to actively innovate regulatory science to protect human and animal health. This requires consideration and consultation across all stakeholder groups. To this end, the European Medicines Agency worked with stakeholders to draft its Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025 and launched it for public consultation. The responses to this consultation were analyzed qualitatively, using framework analysis and quantitatively, to derive stakeholders' aggregate scores for the proposed recommendations. This paper provides a comprehensive resource of stakeholder positions on key regulatory science topics of the coming 5 years. These stakeholder positions have implications for the development and regulatory approval of both human and veterinary medicines.

BackgroundNational regulatory authorities (NRAs) make the decision to register a medicine based on an assessment of its benefits and risks and publicly available assessment reports are used as a tool to communicate the basis for the decision. The Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment (UMBRA) has also been used to effectively communicate the basis of regulatory decisions. Many NRAs in emerging markets place reliance on the public assessment reports (PARs) of reference agencies to inform about their own regulatory decisions. However, PAR users often criticise the redacted nature of PARs and may be challenged in identifying key benefits and risks, value judgements, and benefit-risk (BR) trade-offs.MethodsPARs for ertugliflozin l-pyroglutamic acid, erenumab, and durvalumab published by regulatory bodies in Australia, Europe, Canada, and the United States were compared with the validated UMBRA Benefit-Risk Template to evaluate the BR decision documentation. Published validation of UMBRA included report of a consortium of four regulatory authorities in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Singapore indicating that their clinical assessment templates were modified to align with the UMBRA approach. A focus group discussed the use of PARs as potential knowledge management tools for stakeholder understanding of regulatory decision making. The South African Health Product Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) approach to document and communicate the BR decisions was evaluated.ResultsResults indicate key elements to include in the PARs including regulatory history, an effects table and a record of the strengths and uncertainties for each benefit and risk. Focus group participants agreed that a harmonised PAR template would support improved regulatory decision-making transparency. SAHPRA communication of BR decisions could be improved through the use of the UMBRA BR Template as a guidance for BR assessment and the basis of the South Africa public assessment report format.ConclusionSAHPRA's use of a structured template that supports transparent and quality decision making could have a major impact in ensuring consistency in the BR assessment of new medicines. The implementation of this effective approach for communicating BR decisions will advance agency goals of being a trusted, responsive, accountable regulatory body in which all healthcare stakeholders may rely on with confidence.

Balancing benefits and risks is a complex task that poses a major challenge, both to the approval of new medicines and devices by regulatory authorities and in therapeutic decision-making in practice. Several analysis methods and visualization tools have been developed to help evaluate and communicate whether the benefit-risk profile is favorable or unfavorable. In this White Paper, we describe approaches to benefit-risk assessment using qualitative approaches such as the Benefit Risk Action Team framework developed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Benefit-Risk Framework developed by the United States Food and Drug Administration; and quantitative approaches such as the numbers needed to treat for benefit and harm, the benefit-risk ratio, and Incremental Net Benefit. We give illustrative examples of benefit-risk evaluations using 4 treatment interventions including sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes; a direct antithrombin agent, dabigatran, for reducing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis; and antiplatelet agents vorapaxar and prasugrel for reducing cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Regular applications of structured benefit-risk assessment, whether qualitative, quantitative, or both, enabled by easy-to-understand graphical presentations that capture uncertainties around the benefit-risk metric, may aid shared decision-making and enhance transparency of those decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data.Methods: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.Results: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences.Conclusion: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National regulatory authorities (NRAs) make the decision to register a medicine based on an assessment of its benefits and risks and publicly available assessment reports are used as a tool to communicate the basis for the decision. The Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment (UMBRA) has also been used to effectively communicate the basis of regulatory decisions. Many NRAs in emerging markets place reliance on the public assessment reports (PARs) of reference agencies to inform about their own regulatory decisions. However, PAR users often criticise the redacted nature of PARs and may be challenged in identifying key benefits and risks, value judgements, and benefit-risk (BR) trade-offs. Methods: PARs for ertugliflozin l-pyroglutamic acid, erenumab, and durvalumab published by regulatory bodies in Australia, Europe, Canada, and the United States were compared with the validated UMBRA Benefit-Risk Template to evaluate the BR decision documentation. Published validation of UMBRA included report of a consortium of four regulatory authorities in Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Singapore indicating that their clinical assessment templates were modified to align with the UMBRA approach. A focus group discussed the use of PARs as potential knowledge management tools for stakeholder understanding of regulatory decision making. The South African Health Product Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) approach to document and communicate the BR decisions was evaluated. Results: Results indicate key elements to include in the PARs including regulatory history, an effects table and a record of the strengths and uncertainties for each benefit and risk. Focus group participants agreed that a harmonised PAR template would support improved regulatory decision-making transparency. SAHPRA communication of BR decisions could be improved through the use of the UMBRA BR Template as a guidance for BR assessment and the basis of the South Africa public assessment report format. Conclusion: SAHPRA's use of a structured template that supports transparent and quality decision making could have a major impact in ensuring consistency in the BR assessment of new medicines. The implementation of this effective approach for communicating BR decisions will advance agency goals of being a trusted, responsive, accountable regulatory body in which all healthcare stakeholders may rely on with confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health risks linked with dioxin in fish remain a complex policy issue. Fatty Baltic fish contain persistent pollutants, but they are otherwise healthy food. We studied the health benefits and risks associated with Baltic herring and salmon in four countries to identify critical uncertainties and to facilitate an evidence-based discussion.Methods: We performed an online survey investigating consumers' fish consumption and its motivation in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. Dioxin and methylmercury concentrations were estimated based on Finnish studies. Exposure-response functions for several health endpoints were evaluated and quantified based on the scientific literature. We also quantified the infertility risk of men based on a recent European risk assessment estimating childhood dioxin exposure and its effect on sperm concentration later in life.Results: Baltic herring and salmon contain omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D, and the beneficial impact of these fishes on cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and the risk of depression and cancer clearly outweighs risks of dioxins and methylmercury in people older than 45 years of age and in young men. Young women may expose their children to pollutants during pregnancy and breast feeding. This study suggests that even in this critical subgroup, the risks are small and the health benefits are greater than or at least similar to the health risks. Value of information analysis demonstrated that the remaining scientific uncertainties are not large. In contrast, there are several critical uncertainties that are inherently value judgements, such as whether exceeding the tolerable weekly intake is an adverse outcome as such; and whether or not subgroup-specific restrictions are problematic.Conclusions: The potential health risks attributable to dioxins in Baltic fish have more than halved in the past 10 years. The new risk assessment issued by the European Food Safety Authority clearly increases the fraction of the population exceeding the tolerable dioxin intake, but nonetheless, quantitative estimates of net health impacts change only marginally. Increased use of small herring (which have less pollutants) is a no-regret option. A more relevant value-based policy discussion rather than research is needed to clarify official recommendations related to dioxins in fish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The audit and review was carried out in a 24-bed reablement unit designed to improve independence and mobility in those ≥65 years. PPIs have been identified as a significant source of drug expenditure and evidence has shown that they are often prescribed inappropriately. PPIs are effective for conditions including dyspepsia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) but can also be associated with adverse effects and contribute to polypharmacy. The aim of the audit was to: Determine the number of patients admitted on PPIs. Determine the appropriateness of PPI prescriptions. Review any inappropriate prescriptions. Methods Prospective data collection was carried out for all newly admitted older adults over a 9 week period using a pre-approved data collection tool. Information was collected on PPI prescription details, indications and risk factors. PPI appropriateness regarding indications and dosage was reviewed by the pharmacist using guidelines1 and clinical experience. The pharmacist's recommendation was then reviewed by the medical team and changes to prescription made where deemed appropriate. Results n=40 patients assessed. n=24 (60%) prescribed a PPI. n=19 (79.2%) deemed inappropriate by the pharmacist. Interventions made for n=13 (68.4%) of PPIs deemed inappropriate: n=8 (42.1%) were dose reduced. n=5 (26.3%) were discontinued. n=6 (31.6%) deemed unsuitable for review: n=1 deemed high risk for a gastrointestinal bleed. n=3 with GORD symptoms despite PPI use. n=1 for GP follow-up. n=1 previous unsuccessful dose reduction. Conclusion Most patients on a PPI did not have a clear indication. The majority of inappropriate PPIs were deemed suitable for review and were subsequently dose reduced or discontinued. Some patients were unsuitable for PPI review due to multiple risk factors or ongoing symptoms of reflux. The continued need for PPIs should be assessed regularly and a risk-benefit analysis should be carried out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eva G Katz,1 Brett Hauber,2 Srihari Gopal,3 Angie Fairchild,2 Amy Pugh,4 Rachel B Weinstein,3 Bennett S Levitan3 1Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Raritan, NJ, 2RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, 3Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, 4The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), CA, USA Purpose: To quantify clinical trial participants’ and investigators’ judgments with respect to the relative importance of efficacy and safety attributes of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia, and to assess the impact of formulation and adherence.Methods: Discrete-choice experiment surveys were completed by patients with schizophrenia and physician investigators participating in two phase-3 clinical trials of paliperidone palmitate 3-month long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic. Respondents were asked to choose between hypothetical antipsychotic profiles defined by efficacy, safety, and mode of administration. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and probit models.Results: Patients (N=214) and physicians (N=438) preferred complete improvement in positive symptoms (severe to none) as the most important attribute, compared with improvement in any other attribute studied. Both respondents preferred 3-month and 1-month injectables to oral formulation (P30%. For patients, adherent: 10.1% (95% CI: 6.1–14.1), nonadherent: the change in efficacy studied was regarded as unimportant.Conclusion: Improvement in positive symptoms was the most important attribute. Patients and physicians preferred LAIs over oral antipsychotics, with physicians showing a greater preference for 3-month over 1-month LAI. Physicians and patients were willing to accept reduced efficacy in exchange for switching a patient from an oral formulation to a LAI. Keywords: benefit–risk assessment, long-acting injectable, patient preference, physician preference, schizophrenia, survey

The science of pharmacovigilance (PV) is important to ensure safety of patients and healthy volunteers taking medicinal products. A number of stakeholders are involved who contribute to the success of this field of medicine. One such contributor is physicians and health-care professionals who work in different therapeutic areas such as cardiology. As the understanding of this science evolves, the role of cardiologist becomes even more vital. The process of developing drugs is getting more complex, time consuming, and costly. However, several efficiencies can be achieved around accelerated drug development, cost effectiveness, risk management, managing health authority expectations, and developing personalized medicines. This is possible by increased collaboration between cardiologists and pharmaceutical medicine professionals. Therefore, it is important for a cardiologist to understand the basics of the science of PV and contribute further bringing new safe medicines to patients.

Abstract: Background: The objectives of this study were to elicit the preferences of patients with multiple myeloma regarding the possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments and to illustrate how such data may be used to estimate patients’ acceptance of new treatments. Patients and Methods: Patients with multiple myeloma from the cancer charity Myeloma UK were invited to participate in an online survey based on multicriteria decision analysis and swing weighting to elicit individual stated preferences for the following attributes: (a) 1‐year progression‐free survival (PFS, ranging from 50% to 90%), (b) mild or moderate toxicity for 2 months or longer (ranging from 85% to 45%), and (c) severe or life‐threatening toxicity (ranging from 80% to 20%). Results: A total of 560 participants completed the survey. The average weight given to PFS was 0.54, followed by 0.32 for severe or life‐threatening toxicity and 0.14 for mild or moderate chronic toxicity. Participants who ranked severe or life‐threatening toxicity above mild or moderate chronic toxicity (56%) were more frequently younger, working, and looking after dependent family members and had more frequently experienced severe or life‐threatening side effects. The amount of weight given to PFS did not depend on any of the collected covariates. The feasibility of using the collected preference data to estimate the patients’ acceptance of specific multiple myeloma treatments was demonstrated in a subsequent decision analysis example. Conclusion: Stated preference studies provide a systematic approach to gain knowledge about the distribution of preferences in the population and about what this implies for patients’ acceptance of specific treatments. Implications for Practice: This study demonstrated how quantitative preference statements from a large group of participants can be collected through an online survey and how such information may be used to explore the acceptability of specific treatments based on the attributes studied. Results from such studies have the potential to become an important new tool for gathering patient views and studying heterogeneity in preferences in a systematic way, along with other methods, such as focus groups and expert opinions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives: Diagnostic imaging has many effects and there is no common definition of value in diagnostic radiology. As benefit-risk trade-offs are rarely made explicit, it is not clear which framework is used in clinical guideline development. We describe initial steps toward the creation of a benefit-risk framework for diagnostic radiology.Materials and Methods: We performed a literature search and an online survey of physicians to identify and collect benefit-risk criteria (BRC) relevant to diagnostic imaging tests. We operationalized a process for selection of BRC with the use of four clinical use case scenarios that vary by diagnostic alternatives and clinical indication. Respondent BRC selections were compared across clinical scenarios and between radiologists and nonradiologists.Results: Thirty-six BRC were identified and organized into three domains: (1) those that account for differences attributable only to the test or device (n = 17); (2) those that account for clinical management and provider experiences (n = 12); and (3) those that capture patient experience (n = 7). Forty-eight survey participants selected 22 criteria from the initial list in the survey (9-11 per case). Engaging ordering physicians increased the number of criteria selected in each of the four clinical scenarios presented. We developed a process for standardizing selection of BRC in guideline development.Conclusion: These results suggest that a process relying on elements of comparative effectiveness and the use of standardized BRC may ensure consistent examination of differences among alternatives by way of making explicit implicit trade-offs that otherwise enter the decision-making space and detract from consistency and transparency. These findings also highlight the need for multidisciplinary teams that include input from ordering physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hemophilia A is a chronic condition that requires meticulous treatment and management. Patient preferences for prophylactic treatment can substantially influence adherence, outcomes, and quality of life, yet these preferences remain underexplored, particularly in China., Objective: This study aimed to investigate the preferences for prophylactic treatment among Chinese adult patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors, considering clinical effectiveness, side effects, dosing mode, and dosing frequency., Methods: A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit patient preferences for prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. The study was conducted across 7 provinces in China with socioeconomic and geographical diversity. Subgroup analysis was performed according to education level, geographic location, and treatment type, alongside the exploration of benefit-risk trade-offs., Results: A total of 113 patients completed the discrete choice experiment questionnaire, and we included 102 responses for analysis based on predetermined exclusion criteria. The study found that patients prioritized reducing annual bleeding times and avoiding the risk of developing inhibitors over treatment process attributes. Subgroup analysis revealed that lower-educated patients and those from rural areas attached more importance to the dosing mode, likely due to barriers to self-administration. Patients demonstrated a clear understanding of benefit-risk trade-offs, exhibiting a willingness to accept an increased risk of developing inhibitors for improved clinical outcomes., Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the preferences of patients with hemophilia A for prophylactic treatment in China. Understanding these preferences can enhance shared decision-making between patients and clinicians, fostering personalized prophylactic treatment plans that may optimize adherence and improve clinical outcomes., (©Limin Wang, Shimeng Liu, Shan Jiang, Chaofan Li, Liyong Lu, Yunhai Fang, Shunping Li. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 26.07.2023.)

AbstractPurposeThe importance of a framework for a systematic structured assessment of the benefits and risks has been established, but in addition, it is necessary that the benefit-risk decisions and the processes to derive those decisions are documented and communicated to various stakeholders for accountability. Hence there is now a need to find appropriate tools to enhance communication in a manner that would uphold transparency, consistency and standards. MethodsA retrospective, non-comparative study was conducted to determine the applicability and practicality of a summary template in documenting benefit-risk assessment and communicating benefit-risk balance and conclusions for reviewers to other stakeholders. The benefit-risk (BR) Summary Template and its User Manual was evaluated by 12 reviewers within a regulatory agency in Singapore, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). ResultsThe BR Summary Template was found to be adequate in documenting benefits, risks, relevant summaries and conclusions, while the User Manual was useful in guiding the reviewer in completing the template. The BR Summary Template was also considered a useful tool for communicating benefit-risk decisions to a variety of stakeholders.ConclusionsThe use of a template may be of value for the communicating benefit-risk assessment of medicines to stakeholders.

Regulatory decisions are often based on multiple clinical end points, but the perspectives used to judge the relative importance of those end points are predominantly those of expert decision makers rather than of the patient. However, there is a growing awareness that active patient and public participation can improve decision making, increase acceptance of decisions, and improve adherence to treatments. The assessment of risk versus benefit requires not only information on clinical outcomes but also value judgments about which outcomes are important and whether the potential benefits outweigh the harms. There are a number of mechanisms for capturing the input of patients, and regulatory bodies within the European Union are participating in several initiatives. These can include patients directly participating in the regulatory decision-making process or using information derived from patients in empirical studies as part of the evidence considered. One promising method that is being explored is the elicitation of "patient preferences." Preferences, in this context, refer to the individual's evaluation of health outcomes and can be understood as statements regarding the relative desirability of a range of treatment options, treatment characteristics, and health states. Several methods for preference measurement have been proposed, and pilot studies have been undertaken to use patient preference information in regulatory decision making. This article describes how preferences are currently being considered in the benefit-risk assessment context, and shows how different methods of preference elicitation are used to support decision making within the European context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demands for greater transparency in US regulatory assessments of benefits and risks, together with growing interest in engaging patients in Food and Drug Administration regulatory decision making, have resulted in several recent regulatory developments. Although Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) have established patient-engagement initiatives, CDRH has proposed guidelines for considering quantitative data on patients' benefit-risk perspectives, while CDER has focused on a more qualitative approach. We summarize two significant studies that were developed in collaboration and consultation with CDER and CDRH. CDER encouraged a patient advocacy group to propose draft guidance on engaging patient and caregiver stakeholders in regulatory decision making for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. CDRH sponsored a discrete-choice experiment case study to quantify obese respondents' perspectives on "meaningful benefits." CDRH and CDER issued draft guidance in May and June 2015, respectively, on including patient-preference data in regulatory submissions. Both organizations face challenges. CDER is working on integrating qualitative data into existing evidence-based review processes and is exploring options for therapeutic areas not included on a priority list. CDRH has adopted an approach that requires patient-preference data to satisfy standards of valid scientific evidence. Although that strategy could facilitate integrating patient perspectives directly with clinical data on benefits and harms, generating such data requires building capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of the present study was to provide an insight into the characteristics and follow-up of postmarketing studies of medicines that were conditionally authorized in the European Union (EU). Methods We compiled a list of all postmarketing studies attached as specific obligations to the licence of medicines that were granted conditional marketing authorization from January 2006 to April 2014. Studies were characterized based on their objective, design, status upon marketing authorization (MA) and due data set by authorities. They were linked to online study registrations (, ENCePP) to determine completion date. We described and associated characteristics of studies and medicines, and determined whether studies were completed on time. Results A total of 59 postmarketing studies were requested for 21 conditionally authorized medicines. Most studies had an interventional study design (73%), were ongoing upon MA (61%) and aimed to provide additional data on efficacy (45%). Interventional studies were more often ongoing and providing efficacy data, while observational and other studies were more often new and providing safety data. Frequent grounds for requesting postmarketing studies were 'long-term follow-up' and 'increase data on subpopulations'. Of the 34 studies eligible for follow-up analysis, 26 (76%) were completed and 17 (50%) completed on time. Actual completion time took a median (interquartile range) of 274 (−121 to 556) days longer than expected. Conclusions Our results indicated that most postmarketing studies attached to a conditional marketing authorization were eventually completed but that half were completed with a substantial delay. The observations suggest caution when broadening the use of postmarketing studies for resolving uncertainties about benefits and risks after MA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have been inconclusive regarding the validity and reliability of preference elicitation methods.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the metrics obtained from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and profile-case best-worst scaling (BWS) with respect to hip replacement.Methods: We surveyed the general US population of men aged 45 to 65 years, and potentially eligible for hip replacement surgery. The survey included sociodemographic questions, eight DCE questions, and twelve BWS questions. Attributes were the probability of a first and second revision, pain relief, ability to participate in sports and perform daily activities, and length of hospital stay. Conditional logit analysis was used to estimate attribute weights, level preferences, and the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) for undergoing revision surgery in six hypothetical treatment scenarios with different attribute levels.Results: A total of 429 (96%) respondents were included. Comparable attribute weights and level preferences were found for both BWS and DCE. Preferences were greatest for hip replacement surgery with high pain relief and the ability to participate in sports and perform daily activities. Although the estimated MARs for revision surgery followed the same trend, the MARs were systematically higher in five of the six scenarios using DCE.Conclusions: This study confirms previous findings that BWS or DCEs are comparable in estimating attribute weights and level preferences. However, the risk tolerance threshold based on the estimation of MAR differs between these methods, possibly leading to inconsistency in comparing treatment scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment report formats of four major regulatory reference agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration were compared to a benefit-risk (BR) documentation template developed by the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science and a four-member Consortium on Benefit-Risk Assessment. A case study was also conducted using a US FDA Medical Review, the European Public Assessment Report and Australia’s Public Assessment Report for the same product. Compared with the BR Template, existing regulatory report formats are inadequate regarding the listing of benefits and risks, the assigning of relative importance and values, visualization and the utilization of a detailed, systematic, standardized structure. The BR Template is based on the principles of BR assessment common to major regulatory agencies. Given that there are minimal differences among the existing regulatory report formats, it is timely to consider the feasibility of a universal template.