Advertisement

Quantitative Risk/Benefit Assessment: Where Are We?

  • Christy Chuang-Stein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Statistics book series (LNS, volume 1205)

Abstract

Pharmaceutical sponsors use a variety of approaches to make important benefit/risk decisions about their products internally. Benefit/risk assessment is equally important when regulators evaluate a product for marketing approval and payers evaluate it for reimbursement decision. Once a product receives marketing authorization, it is critical to communicate pertinent benefit and risk information to patients and health-care providers. All of the above can be made easier by the use of a common framework. In this paper, we review where we are in benefit/risk assessment. This includes endeavors by academic institutions, regulators, and the pharmaceutical industry. Despite concerns about quantitative benefit/risk assessment expressed by some, we argue that without a way to quantitatively incorporate the relative importance of factors impacting benefit/risk assessment, it will be hard to bring transparent decisions to questions such as “does the benefit of this product outweigh the risk.”

Keywords

Bleeding Event Utility Weighting Advisory Committee Meeting Fourth Hurdle Advisory Committee Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

The author wants to thank Jon Norton for the use of Fig. 2. The author also wants to thank PhRMA BRAT, especially Bennett Levitan, Paul Coplan, Rebecca Noel, Marilyn Metcalf, and Diana Hughes, for BRAT-generated materials. In addition, the author wants to thank Leila Zelnick and Tom Fleming for their comments which have helped improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Honig PK (2011) Comparative effectiveness: the fourth hurdle in drug development and a role for clinical pharmacology. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89(2):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gelber RD, Gelman RS, Goldhirsch A (1989) A quality of-life oriented endpoint for comparing treatments. Biometrics 45:781–795MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, Gelber RD (1990) Quality adjusted survival analysis. Stat Med 9:1259–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hughes DA, Bayoumi AM, Pirmohamed M (2007) Current assessment of risk-benefit by regulators: is it time to introduce decision analyses? Clin Pharmacol Ther 82:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irish W, Sherrill B, Cole B, Gard C, Gledenning GA, Mouridsen H (2005) Quality-adjusted survival in a crossover trial of letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 10:1458–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chuang-Stein C (1994) A new proposal for benefit-less-risk analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 15:30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ouellet D, Werth J, Parekh N, Feltner D, McCarthy B, Lalonde RL (2009) The use of a clinical utility index to compare insomnia compounds: a quantitative basis for benefit-risk assessment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 85:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chuang-Stein C, Mohberg NR, Sinkula M (1991) Three measures for simultaneously evaluating benefits and risks using a categorical data from clinical trials. Stat Med 10:1349–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Entsuah R, Gorman JM (2002) Global benefit-risk assessment of antidepressants: venlafaxine XR and fluoxetine. J Psychiatr Res 36:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Entsuah R, Gao B (2002) Global benefit-risk evaluation of antidepressant action: comparison of pooled data for venlafaxine, SSRIs and placebo. CNS Spectr 7:882–888Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pritchett Y, Tamura R (2008) The application of global benefit-risk assessment in clinical trial design and some statistical considerations. Pharm Stat 7:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norton J (2010) A longitudinal model for medical benefit-risk analysis, with case study. Presented at the 19th Annual International Chinese Statistical Association Applied Statistics Symposium, Indianapolis, IN, June 20–23Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norton J (2011) A longitudinal model and graphic for benefit-risk analysis, with case study. Drug Inf J 45:741–747Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coplan PM, Noel RA, Levitan BS, Fergun J, Mussen F (2011) Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility and communication of the benefit-risk balance of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89:312–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, Ferguson J, Noel RA, Coplan PM, Mussen F (2011) Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S (2007) A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines – part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16(Suppl 1):S2–S15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S (2007) A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines – part 2: the practical application of a new model. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16(Suppl 1):S16–S41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Temple R (2007) Quantitative decision analysis: a work in progress. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82:127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chuang-Stein C, Entsuah R, Pritchett Y (2008) Measures for conducting comparative benefit:risk assessment. Drug Inf J 42:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Neill R (2008) A perspective on characterizing benefits and risks derived from clinical trials: can we do more? Drug Inf J 42:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoerl RW, Snee RD (2010) Statistical engineering: an idea whose time has come? A discussion in honor of Gerry Hahn’s 80th birthday. Presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver British Columbia, August 1–5Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kramer JM (2009) Balancing the benefits and risks of inhaled long-acting beta-agonists – the influence of values. N Engl J Med 360:1592–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, Neumann FJ, Ardissino D, De Servi S, Murphy SA, Riesmeyer J, Weerakkody G, Gibson CM, Antman EM (2007) TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357:2001–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistical Research and Consulting Center, Pfizer Inc.KalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations