Regulatory requirements and optimization of multiple criteria decision analysis to quantify the benefit-risk assessment of medical devices

被引:1
|
作者
Su, Gui [1 ,2 ]
Deng, Dongyuan [1 ]
机构
[1] Medtron China, Dept Clin Res & Med Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Clin Res & Med Sci, Medtron Greater China, 22nd Floor Block D Pl Tower 9 Guanghua Rd, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
关键词
benefit-risk assessment; MCDA method; medical devices; quantitative analysis; regulatory requirements; CLASSIFICATION; MEDICINES;
D O I
10.1080/17434440.2023.2190021
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Plain Language SummaryWorldwide 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. IntroductionWorldwide 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.Areas CoveredWe 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.Expert OpinionRegulatory 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.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:273 / 281
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses
    Caster, Ola
    Edwards, I. Ralph
    BMC NEUROLOGY, 2015, 15
  • [32] A Concise Display of Multiple End Points for Benefit-Risk Assessment
    Levitan, B.
    CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2011, 89 (01) : 56 - 59
  • [33] Quantitative benefit-risk assessment of methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis relapses
    Ola Caster
    I. Ralph Edwards
    BMC Neurology, 15
  • [34] Periodic benefit-risk assessment using Bayesian stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis
    Li, Kan
    Yuan, Shuai Sammy
    Wang, William
    Wan, Shuyan Sabrina
    Ceesay, Paulette
    Heyse, Joseph F.
    Mt-Isa, Shahrul
    Luo, Sheng
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2018, 67 : 100 - 108
  • [35] QUANTITATIVE BENEFIT-RISK OF PENUMBRA AND SOLITAIRE DEVICES FOR ACUTE STROKE TREATMENT; A MULTICRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS.
    Garzon, J.
    Mendoza, J.
    Silva, F.
    Rodriguez, V.
    Rueda, L.
    Arias, J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2020, 15 (1_SUPPL) : 606 - 606
  • [36] Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness ResearchStrangers, Bedfellows or Strange Bedfellows?
    Louis P. Garrison
    PharmacoEconomics, 2010, 28 : 855 - 865
  • [37] Is there a need for a universal benefit-risk assessment framework for medicines? Regulatory and industry perspectives
    Leong, James
    McAuslane, Neil
    Walker, Stuart
    Salek, Sam
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2013, 22 (09) : 1004 - 1012
  • [38] Human Genome Editing in the Clinic: New Challenges in Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessment
    Abou-El-Enein, Mohamed
    Cathomen, Toni
    Ivics, Zoltan
    June, Carl H.
    Renner, Matthias
    Schneider, Christian K.
    Bauer, Gerhard
    CELL STEM CELL, 2017, 21 (04) : 427 - 430
  • [39] Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force
    Tervonen, Tommi
    Veldwijk, Jorien
    Payne, Katherine
    Ng, Xinyi
    Levitan, Bennett
    Lackey, Leila G.
    Marsh, Kevin
    Thokala, Praveen
    Pignatti, Francesco
    Donnelly, Anne
    Ho, Martin
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (04) : 449 - 460
  • [40] International Experiences in Quantitative Benefit-Risk Analysis to Support Regulatory Decisions
    Reed, Shelby D.
    Lavezzari, Gabriela
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2016, 19 (06) : 727 - 729