Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature

被引:17
|
作者
Kurzinger, Marie-Laure [1 ]
Douarin, Ludivine [1 ]
Uzun, Ievgeniia [2 ]
El-Haddad, Chantal [1 ]
Hurst, William [2 ]
Juhaeri, Juhaeri [2 ]
Tcherny-Lessenot, Stephanie [1 ]
机构
[1] Sanofi, Global Epidemiol & Benefit Risk Evaluat, 1 Ave Pierre Brossolette 91385, F-91000 Chilly Mazarin, France
[2] Sanofi, Global Epidemiol & Benefit Risk Evaluat, Bridgewater, MA USA
关键词
benefit-risk; decision making; multi-criteria decision analysis; patient perspective; physician perspective; quantitative; regulation; regulatory perspective; structured;
D O I
10.1177/2042098620976951
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
A favorable benefit-risk profile remains an essential requirement for marketing authorization of medicinal drugs and devices. Furthermore, prior subjective, implicit and inconsistent ad hoc benefit-risk assessment methods have rightly evolved towards more systematic, explicit or "structured" approaches. Contemporary structured benefit-risk evaluation aims at providing an objective assessment of the benefit-risk profile of medicinal products and a higher transparency for decision making purposes. The use of a descriptive framework should be the preferred starting point for a structured benefit-risk assessment. In support of more precise assessments, quantitative and semi-quantitative methodologies have been developed and utilized to complement descriptive or qualitative frameworks in order to facilitate the structured evaluation of the benefit-risk profile of medicinal products. In addition, quantitative structured benefit-risk analysis allows integration of patient preference data. Collecting patient perspectives throughout the medical product development process has become increasingly important and key to the regulatory decision-making process. Both industry and regulatory authorities increasingly rely on descriptive structured benefit-risk evaluation and frameworks in drug, vaccine and device evaluation and comparison. Although varied qualitative methods are more commonplace, quantitative approaches have recently been emphasized. However, it is unclear how frequently these quantitative frameworks have been used by pharmaceutical companies to support submission dossiers for drug approvals or to respond to the health authorities' requests. The objective of this study has been to identify and review, for the first time, currently available, published, structured, quantitative benefit-risk evaluations which may have informed health care professionals and/or payor as well as contributed to decision making purposes in the regulatory setting for drug, vaccine and/or device approval. Plain language summary Quantitative evaluation of the benefit-risk balance for medicinal products The review of the benefits and the risks associated with a medicinal product is called benefit-risk assessment. One of the conditions for a medicinal product to receive marketing authorization is to demonstrate a positive benefit-risk balance in which the benefits outweigh the risks. In order to enhance the transparency and consistency in the assessment of benefit-risk balance, frameworks and quantitative methods have been developed for decision making purposes and regulatory approvals of medicinal products. This article considers published quantitative benefit-risk evaluations which may have informed health care professionals and/or payor as well as contributed to decision making purposes in the regulatory setting for drug, vaccine and/or device approval.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Implementing Benefit-Risk Assessment for the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
    Warner, Margaret R.
    Wolka, Anne M.
    Noel, Rebecca A.
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2016, 50 (03) : 342 - 346
  • [2] Implementing Benefit-Risk Assessment for the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
    Margaret R. Warner
    Anne M. Wolka
    Rebecca A. Noel
    [J]. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2016, 50 : 342 - 346
  • [3] Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products
    Hallgreen, Christine E.
    Mt-Isa, Shahrul
    Lieftucht, Alfons
    Phillips, Lawrence D.
    Hughes, Diana
    Talbot, Susan
    Asiimwe, Alex
    Downey, Gerald
    Genov, Georgy
    Hermann, Richard
    Noel, Rebecca
    Peters, Ruth
    Micaleff, Alain
    Tzoulaki, Ioanna
    Ashby, Deborah
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2016, 25 (03) : 238 - 250
  • [4] A Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Operating Model for Investigational Medicinal Products in the Pharmaceutical Industry
    Sullivan, Tim
    Zorenyi, Gyorgy
    Feron, Jane
    Smith, Meredith
    Nord, Magnus
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2023, 57 (04) : 849 - 864
  • [5] A Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Operating Model for Investigational Medicinal Products in the Pharmaceutical Industry
    Tim Sullivan
    Gyorgy Zorenyi
    Jane Feron
    Meredith Smith
    Magnus Nord
    [J]. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2023, 57 : 849 - 864
  • [6] Evaluation of Benefit-Risk
    Garattini, Silvio
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2010, 28 (11) : 981 - 986
  • [7] Evaluation of Benefit-Risk
    Silvio Garattini
    [J]. PharmacoEconomics, 2010, 28 : 981 - 986
  • [8] On a Stepwise Quantitative Approach for Benefit-Risk Assessment
    He, Weili
    Sun, Yaxuan
    Li, Qing
    Wan, Sabrina
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2017, 51 (05) : 625 - 634
  • [9] On a Stepwise Quantitative Approach for Benefit-Risk Assessment
    Weili He
    Yaxuan Sun
    Qing Li
    Sabrina Wan
    [J]. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2017, 51 : 625 - 634
  • [10] Three methods for integration of environmental risk into the benefit-risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products
    Chapman, Jennifer L.
    Porsch, Lucas
    Vidaurre, Rodrigo
    Backhaus, Thomas
    Sinclair, Chris
    Jones, Glyn
    Boxall, Alistair B. A.
    [J]. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 605 : 692 - 701