A case study using the PrOACT‐URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment

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.

[1]  Ludwig Kappos,et al.  A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  Ludwig Kappos,et al.  Natalizumab treatment for multiple sclerosis: updated recommendations for patient selection and monitoring , 2007, The Lancet Neurology.

[3]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effectiveness of Graphical Presentation for Information Extraction: A Cumulative Experimental Approach* , 1993 .

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

[5]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  A Bayesian approach to evaluating net clinical benefit allowed for parameter uncertainty. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[7]  C. Granger,et al.  Intramuscular interferon beta‐1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis , 1996, Annals of neurology.

[8]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods , 1984 .

[9]  C M Carswell,et al.  Choosing Specifiers: An Evaluation of the Basic Tasks Model of Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

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

[11]  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.

[12]  G. Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies , 1998, BMJ.

[13]  R McGill,et al.  Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data , 1985, Science.

[14]  Malcolm Rowland,et al.  Bridging the efficacy–effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[15]  J. W. Rose,et al.  Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis , 1995, Neurology.