Search

Clinical trial populations do not fully reflect routine practice. The power of routinely collected data to inform clinical practice is increasingly recognised.The OPTIMISE:MS pharmacovigilance study is a prospective, pragmatic observational study, conducted across 13 UK MS centres. Data were collected at the time of routine clinical visits. The first participant was recruited on 24th May 2019; data were extracted on 11th November 2021.2112 participants were included (median age 44.0 years; 1570 (72%) female; 1981 (94%) relapsing-remitting MS). 639 (30%) were untreated at study entry, 205 (10%) taking interferon beta/copaxone, 1004 (47%) second/third generation DMT first line and 264 (13%) had escalated from a platform DMT. 342 clinical events were reported, of which 108 infections. There was an increased risk of adverse events in people taking second/third generation DMT (RR 3.45, 95%CI 1.57-7.60, p0.01 vs no DMT). Unadjusted Poisson regression demonstrated increased incident adverse events in people taking natalizumab (IRR 5.28, 95%CI 1.41-19.74, p0.05), ocrelizumab (IRR 3.24, 95%CI 1.22-8.62, p0.05), and GA biosimilar (Brabio) (IRR 4.89, 95%CI 1.31-18.21, p0.05) vs no DMT.Routinely collected healthcare data can be used to evaluate DMT safety in people with MS. These data highlight the potential of pragmatic studies to guide understanding of risks and benefits associated with DMT.

IntroductionThe power of ‘real world’ data to improve our understanding of the clinical aspects of multiple sclerosis (MS) is starting to be realised. Disease modifying therapy (DMT) use across the UK is driven by national prescribing guidelines. As such, the UK provides an ideal country in which to gather MS outcomes data. A rigorously conducted observational study with a focus on pharmacovigilance has the potential to provide important data to inform clinicians and patients while testing the reliability of estimates from pivotal trials when applied to patients in the UK.Methods and analysisThe primary aim of this study is to characterise the incidence and compare the risk of serious adverse events in people with MS treated with DMTs. The OPTIMISE:MS database enables electronic data capture and secure data transfer. Selected clinical data, clinical histories and patient-reported outcomes are collected in a harmonised fashion across sites at the time of routine clinical visits. The first patient was recruited to the study on 24 May 2019. As of January 2021, 1615 individuals have baseline data recorded; follow-up data are being captured and will be reported in due course.Ethics and disseminationThis study has ethical permission (London City and East; Ref 19/LO/0064). Potential concerns around data storage and sharing are mitigated by the separation of identifiable data from all other clinical data, and limiting access to any identifiable data. The results of this study will be disseminated via publication. Participants provide consent for anonymised data to be shared for further research use, further enhancing the value of the study.

In multivariate network meta‐analysis (NMA), the piecemeal nature of the evidence base means that there may be treatment‐outcome combinations for which no data is available. Most existing multivariate evidence synthesis models are either unable to estimate the missing treatment‐outcome combinations, or can only do so under particularly strong assumptions, such as perfect between‐study correlations between outcomes or constant effect size across outcomes. Many existing implementations are also limited to two treatments or two outcomes, or rely on model specification that is heavily tailored to the dimensions of the dataset. We present a Bayesian multivariate NMA model that estimates the missing treatment‐outcome combinations via mappings between the population mean effects, while allowing the study‐specific effects to be imperfectly correlated. The method is designed for aggregate‐level data (rather than individual patient data) and is likely to be useful when modeling multiple sparsely reported outcomes, or when varying definitions of the same underlying outcome are adopted by different studies. We implement the model via a novel decomposition of the treatment effect variance, which can be specified efficiently for an arbitrary dataset given some basic assumptions regarding the correlation structure. The method is illustrated using data concerning the efficacy and liver‐related safety of eight active treatments for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis. The results indicate that fingolimod and interferon beta‐1b are the most efficacious treatments but also have some of the worst effects on liver safety. Dimethyl fumarate and glatiramer acetate perform reasonably on all of the efficacy and safety outcomes in the model.

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.

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.

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.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.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.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.

Quantitative decision models such as multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can be used in benefit-risk assessment to formalize trade-offs between benefits and risks, providing transparency to the assessment process. There is however no well-established method for propagating uncertainty of treatment effects data through such models to provide a sense of the variability of the benefit-risk balance. Here, we present a Bayesian statistical method that directly models the outcomes observed in randomized placebo-controlled trials and uses this to infer indirect comparisons between competing active treatments. The resulting treatment effects estimates are suitable for use within the MCDA setting, and it is possible to derive the distribution of the overall benefit-risk balance through Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. The method is illustrated using a case study of natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

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.

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.