Abstract
Abstract
Background
Benefit–risk assessments for medicinal products and devices have advanced significantly over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to characterize the extent to which the life sciences industry is utilizing quantitative benefit–risk assessment (qBRA) methods.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of industry professionals working in drug and/or medical device benefit–risk assessments (n = 20). Questions focused on the use, timing, and impact of qBRA; implementation challenges; and future plans. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic analysis.
Results
While most surveyed companies had applied qBRA, application was limited to a small number of assets—primarily to support internal decision-making and regulatory submissions. Positive impacts associated with use included improved team decision-making and communication. Multi-criteria decision analysis and discrete choice experiment were the most frequently utilized qBRA methods. A key challenge of qBRA use was the lack of clarity regarding its value proposition. Championing by senior company leadership and receptivity of regulators to such analyses were cited as important catalysts for successful adoption of qBRA. Investment in qBRA methods, via capability building and pilot studies, was also under way in some instances.
Conclusion
qBRA application within this sample of life sciences companies was widespread, but concentrated in a small fraction of assets. Its use was primarily for internal decision-making or regulatory submissions. While some companies had plans to build further capacity in this area, others were waiting for further regulatory guidance before doing so.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
Reference39 articles.
1. Amarasena IU, Chatterjee S, Walters JA, Wood-Baker R, Fong KM. Platinum versus non-platinum chemotherapy regimens for small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(8):CD006849 (Epub 2015/08/04).
2. Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, Ferguson J, Noel RA, Coplan PM, et al. Application of the BRAT Framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):217–24 (Epub 2010/12/24).
3. Noel R, Herman R, Levitan B, Watson DJ, Van Goor K. Application of the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework in pharmaceutical R&D: results from a pilot program. Drug Inf J. 2012;46(6):736–43.
4. Revision of M4E guideline on enhancing the format and structure of benefit–risk information in ICH, Efficacy: M4E(R2) 2016 (updated 15 June 2016). https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/CTD/M4E_R2_Efficacy/M4E_R2__Step_4.pdf.
5. McAuslane N, Leong J, Liberti L, Walker S. The benefit–risk assessment of medicines: experience of a Consortium of Medium-Sized Regulatory Authorities. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(5):635–44.
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献