A practical approach to communicating benefit-risk decisions of medicines to stakeholders

被引:6
|
作者
Leong, James [1 ]
Walker, Stuart [2 ]
Salek, Sam [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Duke NUS Grad Med Sch, Ctr Regulatory Excellence, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Ctr Innovat Regulatory Sci, London, England
[3] Univ Hertfordshire, Sch Life & Med Sci, Dept Pharm, Hatfield AL10 9AB, Herts, England
[4] Inst Med Dev, Cardiff CF23 6NP, S Glam, Wales
来源
关键词
benefit-risk assessment; benefit-risk methodologies; pharmaceutical industry; regulatory agency; framework; documentation;
D O I
10.3389/fphar.2015.00099
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Purpose: The 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 between regulators and other stakeholders, in a manner that would uphold transparency, consistency and standards. Methods: A 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). Results: The 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. Conclusions: The use of a template may be of value for the communicating benefit-risk assessment of medicines to stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Strategy for communicating benefit-risk decisions: a comparison of regulatory agencies' publicly available documents
    Yeen, James Leong Wai
    Salek, Sam
    Walker, Stuart
    FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2014, 5 : 269
  • [2] State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: Medicines
    Luteijn, J. M.
    White, B. C.
    Gunnlaugsdottir, H.
    Holm, F.
    Kalogeras, N.
    Leino, O.
    Magnusson, S. H.
    Odekerken, G.
    Pohjola, M. V.
    Tijhuis, M. J.
    Tuomisto, J. T.
    Ueland, O.
    McCarron, P. A.
    Verhagen, H.
    FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY, 2012, 50 (01) : 26 - 32
  • [3] Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit-Risk Decisions
    Tervonen, Tommi
    Angelis, Aris
    Hockley, Kimberley
    Pignatti, Francesco
    Phillips, Lawrence D.
    CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2019, 106 (05) : 955 - 959
  • [5] Practical dilemmas in implementing benefit-risk protocols
    Louis K. Wagner
    Pediatric Radiology, 2002, 32 : 238 - 241
  • [6] Practical dilemmas in implementing benefit-risk protocols
    Wagner, LK
    PEDIATRIC RADIOLOGY, 2002, 32 (04) : 238 - 241
  • [7] Refining the Benefit-Risk Framework for the Assessment of Medicines: Valuing and Weighting Benefit and Risk Parameters
    Walker, S.
    Liberti, L.
    McAuslane, N.
    CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2011, 89 (02) : 179 - 182
  • [8] A Bayesian Approach for Benefit-Risk Assessment
    Zhao, Yueqin
    Zalkikar, Jyoti
    Tiwari, Ram C.
    LaVange, Lisa M.
    STATISTICS IN BIOPHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2014, 6 (04): : 326 - 337
  • [9] A Universal Framework for the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Is This the Way Forward?
    Stuart Walker
    Neil McAuslane
    Lawrence Liberti
    James Leong
    Sam Salek
    Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2015, 49 : 17 - 25
  • [10] A Universal Framework for the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Is This the Way Forward?
    Walker, Stuart
    McAuslane, Neil
    Liberti, Lawrence
    Leong, James
    Salek, Sam
    THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2015, 49 (01) : 17 - 25