Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products.

BACKGROUND: The PROTECT Benefit-Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit-risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. METHODS: A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit-risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. RESULTS: Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit-risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. CONCLUSION: We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit-risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience-visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit-risk analysis information.

Recommendations for benefit-risk assessment methodologies and visual representations.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit-risk assessment. METHODS: Eight case studies based on the benefit-risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit-risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. RESULTS: A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit-risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit-risk assessment from multiple perspectives.

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.

Benefit-risk assessment in a post-market setting: a case study integrating real-life experience into benefit-risk methodology.

PURPOSE: Difficulties may be encountered when undertaking a benefit-risk assessment for an older product with well-established use but with a benefit-risk balance that may have changed over time. This case study investigates this specific situation by applying a formal benefit-risk framework to assess the benefit-risk balance of warfarin for primary prevention of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We used the qualitative framework BRAT as the starting point of the benefit-risk analysis, bringing together the relevant available evidence. We explored the use of a quantitative method (stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis) to demonstrate how uncertainties and preferences on multiple criteria can be integrated into a single measure to reduce cognitive burden and increase transparency in decision making. RESULTS: Our benefit-risk model found that warfarin is favourable compared with placebo for the primary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. This favourable benefit-risk balance is fairly robust to differences in preferences. The probability of a favourable benefit-risk for warfarin against placebo is high (0.99) in our model despite the high uncertainty of randomised clinical trial data. In this case study, we identified major challenges related to the identification of relevant benefit-risk criteria and taking into account the diversity and quality of evidence available to inform the benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The main challenges in applying formal methods for medical benefit-risk assessment for a marketed drug are related to outcome definitions and data availability. Data exist from many different sources (both randomised clinical trials and observational studies), and the variability in the studies is large.

Pragmatic Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Combined With Advanced Pharmacoepidemiology for Benefit-Risk Assessments of Medicines Adapted to the Real-Life Constraints of Regulators: Development and Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) represents a promising method for benefit-risk assessment. Our goal was to develop features of pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM [Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking]) addressing real-life regulatory decision-making needs, incorporate advanced pharmacoepidemiology, and test the resulting benefit-risk framework using a case study. METHODS: The Intervention Outcomes domain of EVIDEM was transformed into a generic benefit-risk framework including clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse event (AE) criteria. The concept of relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB) was developed for comparability across products and therapeutic areas and over time. Evidence matrix was designed to include most relevant data from trials, observational studies, and models, including Bayesian and longitudinal modeling. The framework was tested with a panel of stakeholders using efalizumab for psoriasis as retrospective case study. Uncertainty was explored. RESULTS: The MCDA benefit-risk tree was adapted with psoriasis-specific subcriteria. Panelists assigned similar weights to benefits (0.48; SD, 0.20-0.70) and risks (0.52; SD, 0.10-0.60), with large variations reflecting diverse perspectives. Panelist scores reflected higher efficacy versus placebo, lower efficacy versus active comparators, and serious and fatal AEs identified postlicensing. Efalizumab's RBRB was positive at licensing in 2004 (0.29, scale -1 to +1) and ranged from -0.41 (vs active comparators) to 0.01 (vs placebo) in 2009, when its market authorization was withdrawn. Retesting indicated good reproducibility. Panelists acknowledged good face validity and the importance of criteria beyond benefit-risk in real-life assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The approach allows quantification and visualization of benefit-risk over time and across comparators. Combination of pragmatic MCDA designed to integrate criteria beyond benefit-risk and advanced statistics supports application of MCDA to further accountable benefit-risk assessments for real-life decision making.

Hepatic reactions during treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-beta-1a: incidence and clinical significance.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic dysfunction, manifested as liver enzyme elevations, occurs frequently in patients who are treated with interferon, however, data for patients with multiple sclerosis are limited. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively assess the safety profile of interferon-beta-1a therapy with respect to liver function during clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities were analysed from six randomised, controlled clinical trials (five of which were placebo-controlled) that assessed the use of interferon-beta-1a in patients with multiple sclerosis. Treatment data were collected for 2819 patients for up to 12 months, of whom 1995 received interferon-beta-1a (337 [12%] received Avonex intramuscular therapy, and 1658 [59%] received Rebif subcutaneous therapy), and 824 (29%) received placebo. Data for 2 years were collated for 1178 patients (from two studies). Total weekly interferon doses were 22-132 microg. Postmarketing surveillance data were also analysed. RESULTS: In patients receiving interferon-beta-1a, there were significant elevations of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, of all grades of severity, in up to 59% of patients at 6 months, up to 64% of patients at 12 months and up to 67% of patients at 24 months; ALT elevations were asymptomatic and dose related. More than 50% of elevations in liver enzymes occurred during the first 3 months of treatment, and more than 75% occurred during the first 6 months. Elevated enzyme levels resolved spontaneously or with dosage adjustment. Although the overall incidence of liver enzyme elevation was high during the early months of therapy, after 2 years, the proportion of patients with abnormal liver enzyme levels was 11% of those receiving Rebif 44 microg three times weekly compared with 6% of placebo-treated patients. Only 0.4% of patients discontinued interferon-beta-1a treatment because of hepatic adverse effects. Serious symptomatic interferon-related hepatic toxicity occurs, but is uncommon. Concomitant medication use was not associated with increased risk. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic hepatic dysfunction is common in patients with multiple sclerosis who are treated with interferon-beta-1a, and is dose related. Adverse effects are mainly mild and transient, with little impact on adherence to therapy, although rare serious events can occur. Regular liver function monitoring during the first 6 months is recommended.