Benefit-Risk Evaluation and Decision Making

Pharmaceutical drugs and devices are increasingly evaluated by quantitative tools that combine benefit and risk. These tools vary by their limitations and desirable properties, which may confuse the decision-making process. Experts from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and industry shared their perspectives at the 2012 American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section FDA-Industry Statistics Workshop, and these insights are presented here. First, benefit-risk terminology is given to better understand subtle distinctions. Next, pragmatic considerations in endpoint selection are given that distinguish between benefit-risk assessment and analysis of clinical trials. Then the strengths of weighting methods, including ranking, utilities, and risk tolerance for assessing the trade-off between benefits and risks, are compared. The last topic presented is summarizing information to ease the interpretation, transparency, and ability to support decisions. Benefit-risk methods are moving towards a unified paradigm to make selection of endpoints, weights, and metrics easier and more structured. This will lead to better decision-making based on a transparent assessment and clear interpretability.

[1]  E. Unger,et al.  Anticoagulant options--why the FDA approved a higher but not a lower dose of dabigatran. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  Christy Chuang-Stein,et al.  Sample size and the probability of a successful trial , 2006, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[3]  B S Levitan,et al.  Application of the BRAT Framework to Case Studies: Observations and Insights , 2011, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  Weili He,et al.  A framework for joint modeling and joint assessment of efficacy and safety endpoints for probability of success evaluation and optimal dose selection. , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Kevin E. Kip,et al.  The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .

[7]  John Doyle,et al.  A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[8]  S. Schulman,et al.  Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non‐surgical patients , 2005, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[9]  Juhaeri Juhaeri,et al.  Benefit‐risk analysis: examples using quantitative methods , 2003, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[10]  E. Unger,et al.  Weighing benefits and risks--the FDA's review of prasugrel. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Telba Irony,et al.  Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making , 2014, Surgical Endoscopy.

[12]  Tammy O. Tengs,et al.  One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. , 2000, Medical care.

[13]  B S Levitan,et al.  Development of a Framework for Enhancing the Transparency, Reproducibility and Communication of the Benefit–Risk Balance of Medicines , 2011, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[14]  D Bergqvist,et al.  Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients , 2010, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.