Relevance, Risks, and Benefits of Early-Phases Clinical Trials Participations for Patients With Hematological Malignancies From 2008 to 2023.

BACKGROUND: Early-phases clinical trials (Phases 1 and 2) have evolved from a traditional assessment of toxicity to an adaptive approach based on patients' medical needs and access to effective new therapies. The global risks, benefits, and relevance of early-phases clinical trials participation for patients with hematological malignancies remain poorly evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All early-phases clinical trials participations for patients with hematological malignancies, from 2008 to 2023, in a tertiary academic center in Europe, were reviewed. Patient's demographics, tumor type categories, therapeutic responses, mortality, overall survival (OS), and investigational product (IP) were assessed. RESULTS: Over the period 2008-2023, 736 patients participating in 92 different early-phases clinical trials, were analyzed. The most common tumor categories were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 253; 34.4%), acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 164; 22.3%) and multiple myeloma (n = 100; 13.6%). The median OS was 14.8 (95% CI: 12.4-17.9) months and response rate 31.9%, including complete responses in 13.5% of patients. By tumor categories, the highest and lowest median duration of OS were observed for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (99.8; [95% CI: 47.0-not reached] months) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (8.9 [95% CI: 5.3-12.0] months), respectively. The on-protocol and treatment-related mortality rates were 5.43% and 0.54%, respectively. Overall response rate was 29.1% including 13.5% of complete response. Overall, 202 (27.5%) patients received an IP later approved by the health authorities, and those patients had better OS (18.2 months vs. 12.1 months HR: 1.160 [95% CI; 0.6977-1.391], p = 0.0283). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, patients with hematologic malignancies who have participated in early-phases clinical trials over the past 15 years have achieved variable therapeutic response rates, acceptable risk/benefit ratio and potentially significant therapeutic advantages. This study provides framework material for hematologists to further discuss clinical trial participation with their patients.

[Benefit-risk assessment of three oral Chinese patent medicines for activating blood and eliminating mass in treating primary liver cancer based on network Meta-analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis].

Network Meta-analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis(MCDA) model were performed to evaluate the benefit-risk of Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules in the adjuvant treatment of primary liver cancer(PLC). The randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules in treating PLC were retrieved from CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. R 4.2 was employed to conduct a network Meta-analysis, on the basis of which the effect values of the three medicines were obtained by indirect comparison. MCDA was performed to establish the value tree based on the benefit-risk indexes. Hiview 3.2 was used to calculate the benefit values, risk values, and benefit-risk values of the three medicines in treating PLC, and a sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the robustness of the results. Oracle Crystal Ball 11.1 was employed to optimize the evaluation results by Monte Carlo simulation. A total of 39 RCTs were included. The results showed that Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization(TACE) had the benefit values of 45, 51 and 45, the risk values of 59, 47, and 41, and the benefit-risk values of 52, 49, and 43, respectively. The benefit-risk differences and [95%CI] of Compound Cantharis Capsules vs Huisheng Oral Solution, Compound Cantharis Capsules vs Jinlong Capsules, and Huisheng Oral Solution vs Jinlong Capsules were 3.00[-13.09, 21.82], 9.00[-4.39, 24.62], and 6.00[-8.84, 20.28], respectively. Based on the results of MCDA, Huisheng Oral Solution, Jinlong Capsules, and Compound Cantharis Capsules combined with TACE had the greatest benefit, the greatest risk, and the best overall benefit, respectively. Considering the efficacy and safety, the priority of the three oral Chinese patent medicines combined with TACE for treating PLC followed the trend of Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules.

Illustrating Emerging Good Practices for Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Hypothetical Case Study of Systemic Biologic Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a structured process to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of treatment options to support decision making. The ISPOR qBRA Task Force was recently established to provide recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of qBRA. This report presents a hypothetical case study illustrating how to apply the Task Force's recommendations toward a qBRA to inform the benefit-risk assessment of brodalumab at the time of initial marketing approval. The qBRA evaluated 2 dosing regimens of brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg twice weekly) compared with weight-based dosing of ustekinumab and placebo. METHODS: We followed the 5 steps recommended by the Task Force. Attributes included treatment response (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index), suicidal ideation and behavior, and infections. Performance data were drawn from pivotal clinical trials of brodalumab. The qBRA used multicriteria decision analysis and preference weights from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, consideration of a subgroup (nail psoriasis), and the maintenance phase of treatment (52 weeks instead of 12). RESULTS: Results from this hypothetical qBRA suggest that brodalumab 210 mg had a more favorable benefit-risk profile compared with ustekinumab and placebo. Ranking of brodalumab compared with ustekinumab was dependent on brodalumab's dose. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, as well as choice of attributes and length of follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates how to implement the ISPOR Task Force's good practice recommendations on qBRA.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Design of paediatric trials with benefit-risk endpoints using a composite score of adverse events of interest (AEI) and win-statistics.

A fundamental problem in the regulatory evaluation of a therapy is assessing whether the benefit outweighs the associated risks. This work proposes designing a trial that assesses a composite endpoint consisting of benefit and risk, hence, making the core of the design of the study, to assess benefit and risk. The proposed benefit risk measure consists of efficacy measure(s) and a risk measure that is based on a composite score obtained from pre-defined adverse events of interest (AEI). This composite score incorporates full aspects of adverse events of interest (i.e. the incidence, severity, and duration of the events). We call this newly proposed score the AEI composite score. After specifying the priorities between the components of the composite endpoint, a win-statistic (i.e. win ratio, win odds, or net benefit) is used to assess the difference between treatments in this composite endpoint. The power and sample size requirements of such a trial design are explored via simulation. Finally, using Dupixent published adult study results, we show how we can design a paediatric trial where the primary outcome is a composite of prioritized outcomes consisting of efficacy endpoints and the AEI composite score endpoint. The resulting trial design can potentially substantially reduce sample size compared to a trial designed to assess the co-primary efficacy endpoints, therefore it may address the challenge of slow enrollment and patient availability for paediatric studies.

Evidence synthesis analysis with prioritized benefit outcomes in oncology clinical trials.

Overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response/complete response, and duration of (complete) response are frequently used as the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints for designs and analyses of oncology clinical trials. However, these endpoints are typically analyzed separately. In this article, we introduce an evidence synthesis approach to prioritize the benefit outcomes by applying the generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method, and use win statistics (win ratio, win odds and net benefit) to quantify treatment benefit. Under the framework of GPC, the main advantage of this evidence synthesis approach is the ability to combine relevant outcomes of various types into a single summary statistic without relying on any parametric assumptions. It is particularly relevant since health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry are increasingly incorporating structured quantitative methodologies in their benefit-risk assessment. We apply this evidence synthesis approach to an oncology phase 3 study in first-line renal cell carcinoma to assess the overall effect of an investigational treatment by ranking the most clinically relevant endpoints in cancer drug development. This application and a simulation study demonstrate that the proposed approach can synthesize the evidence of treatment effect from multiple prioritized benefit outcomes, and has substantial advantage over conventional methods that analyze each individual endpoint separately. We also introduce a newly developed R package WINS for statistical inference based on win statistics.

General science-technology orientation, specific benefit-risk assessment frame, and public acceptance of gene drive biotechnology.

With limited understanding of most new biotechnologies, how do citizens form their opinion and what factors influence their attitudes about these innovations? In this study, we use gene drive biotechnology in agricultural pest management as an example and theoretically propose that given low levels of knowledge and awareness, citizens' acceptance of, or opposition to, gene drive is significantly shaped by two predisposition factors: individuals' general orientation toward science and technology, and their specific benefit-risk assessment frame. Empirically, we employ data collected from a recent US nationally representative public opinion survey (N = 1220) and conduct statistical analyses to test the hypotheses derived from our theoretical expectations. Our statistical analyses, based on various model specifications and controlling for individual-level covariates and state-fixed effects, show that citizens with a more favorable general orientation toward science and technology are more likely to accept gene drive. Our data analyses also demonstrate that citizens' specific gene drive assessment frame-consisting of a potential benefit dimension and a potential risk dimension, significantly shapes their attitudes as well-specifically, people emphasizing more on the benefit dimension are more likely to accept gene drive, whereas those who place more importance on the risk dimension tend to oppose it. We discuss contributions of our study and make suggestions for future research in the conclusion.

[Current aspects on the antipsychotic treatment of older people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders]. / Aktuelle Aspekte zur antipsychotischen Behandlung älterer Menschen mit Erkrankungen des schizophrenen Spektrums.

BACKGROUND: From a geriatric perspective, the use of antipsychotic drugs (AP) is associated with significant risks in addition to their known effects. These include unfavorable interactions with geriatric syndromes, such as immobility and risk of falling, and potentially increased mortality, at least in certain patient groups. With reference to this the current state of knowledge on treatment with AP in older people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders is summarized with a focus on the typical multimorbidity of geriatric patients. METHODS: Narrative review with special consideration of guidelines and consensus papers from German speaking countries and a PubMed-supported literature search for current systematic reviews and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Antipsychotic agents are an essential part of a comprehensive treatment concept for schizophrenia with well-documented evidence. In geriatric patients adaptations under gerontopharmacological aspects are necessary. A sufficient data basis for evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of multimorbid and frail geriatric patients does not exist. CONCLUSION: An effective and as safe as possible treatment with AP requires a careful risk-benefit assessment, combined with an individual adaptation regarding the substance applied, dose and treatment duration in an interdisciplinary/multiprofessional context.

Key risk factors for the relative and absolute 5-year risk of cancer to enhance cancer screening and prevention.

BACKGROUND: This study identifies populations who may benefit most from expanded cancer screening. METHODS: Two American Cancer Society prospective cohort studies, Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort and Cancer Prevention Study-3, were used to identify the risk factors associated with a > 2% absolute risk of any cancer within 5 years. In total, 429,991 participants with no prior personal history of cancer were followed for cancer for up to 5 years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for association. By using these hazard ratios, individualized coherent absolute risk estimation was used to calculate absolute risks by age. RESULTS: Overall, 15,226 invasive cancers were diagnosed among participants within 5 years of enrollment. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk of any cancer was strongest for current smokers compared with never-smokers. In men, alcohol intake, family history of cancer, red meat consumption, and physical inactivity were also associated with risk (p < .05). In women, body mass index, type 2 diabetes, hysterectomy, parity, family history of cancer, hypertension, tubal ligation, and physical inactivity were associated (p < .05). The absolute 5-year risk exceeded 2% among nearly all participants older than 50 years and among some participants younger than 50 years, including current or former smokers (<30 years since quitting) and long-term nonsmokers with a body mass index >25 kg/m2 or a first-degree family history of cancer. The absolute 5-year risk was as high as 29% in men and 25% in women. CONCLUSIONS: Older age and smoking were the two most important risk factors associated with the relative and absolute 5-year risk of developing any cancer.

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta-analysis of opioid dependence and a long-term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Lower-dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit-risk score (0.901), followed by higher-dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower-dose NGFi was the highest-ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit-risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.23 for NSAIDs). CONCLUSION: The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit-risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: A comparison with standard approved cancer drugs.

AIMS: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown. METHODS: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4). CONCLUSION: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.

c4c: Paediatric pharmacovigilance: Methodological considerations in research and development of medicines for children - A c4c expert group white paper.

Children frequently respond differently to therapies compared to adults. Differences also exist between paediatric age groups for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in both efficacy and safety. Paediatric pharmacovigilance requires an understanding of the unique aspects of children with regard to, for example, drug response, growth and development, clinical presentation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), how they can be detected and population-specific factors (e.g., more frequent use of off-label/unlicensed drugs). In recognition of these challenges, a group of experts has been formed in the context of the conect4children (c4c) project to support paediatric drug development. This expert group collaborated to develop methodological considerations for paediatric drug safety and pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products which are described in this article. These considerations include practical points to consider for the development of the paediatric section of the risk management plan (RMP), safety in paediatric protocol development, safety data collection and analysis. Furthermore, they describe the specific details of post-marketing pharmacovigilance in children using, for example, spontaneous reports, electronic health care records, registries and record-linkage, as well as the use of paediatric pharmacoepidemiology studies for risk characterisation. Next the details of the assessment of benefit-risk and challenges related to medicinal product formulation in the context of a Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP) are presented. Finally, practical issues in paediatric signal detection and evaluation are included. This paper provides practical points to consider for paediatric pharmacovigilance throughout the life-cycle of medicinal products for RMPs, protocol development, safety data collection and analysis and PIPs.

Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies.

Introduction: Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area. Methods: We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis. Results: We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer.

Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs in Assessment of New Drugs and Devices.

Balancing benefits and risks is a complex task that poses a major challenge, both to the approval of new medicines and devices by regulatory authorities and in therapeutic decision-making in practice. Several analysis methods and visualization tools have been developed to help evaluate and communicate whether the benefit-risk profile is favorable or unfavorable. In this White Paper, we describe approaches to benefit-risk assessment using qualitative approaches such as the Benefit Risk Action Team framework developed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Benefit-Risk Framework developed by the United States Food and Drug Administration; and quantitative approaches such as the numbers needed to treat for benefit and harm, the benefit-risk ratio, and Incremental Net Benefit. We give illustrative examples of benefit-risk evaluations using 4 treatment interventions including sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes; a direct antithrombin agent, dabigatran, for reducing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis; and antiplatelet agents vorapaxar and prasugrel for reducing cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Regular applications of structured benefit-risk assessment, whether qualitative, quantitative, or both, enabled by easy-to-understand graphical presentations that capture uncertainties around the benefit-risk metric, may aid shared decision-making and enhance transparency of those decisions.

Ischemic Benefit and Hemorrhage Risk of Ticagrelor-Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Background and Purpose: In patients with acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, the THALES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) demonstrated that when added to aspirin, ticagrelor reduced stroke or death but increased risk of severe hemorrhage compared with placebo. The primary efficacy outcome of THALES included hemorrhagic stroke and death, events also counted in the primary safety outcome. We sought to disentangle risk and benefit, assess their relative impact, and attempt to identify subgroups with disproportionate risk or benefit. Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of patients with mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, patients were randomized within 24 hours after symptom onset to a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor plus aspirin or matching placebo plus aspirin. For the present analyses, we defined the efficacy outcome, major ischemic events, as the composite of ischemic stroke or nonhemorrhagic death, and defined the safety outcome, major hemorrhage, as intracranial hemorrhage or hemorrhagic death. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these 2 end points. Results: In 11 016 patients (5523 ticagrelor-aspirin and 5493 aspirin), a major ischemic event occurred in 294 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 359 patients (6.5%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk reduction 1.19% [95% CI, 0.31%­2.07%]). Major hemorrhage occurred in 22 patients (0.4%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 6 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk increase 0.29% [95% CI, 0.10%­0.48%]). Net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin (absolute risk reduction 0.97% [95% CI, 0.08%­1.87%]). Findings were similar when different thresholds for disability were applied and over a range of predefined subgroups. Conclusions: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, ischemic benefits of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor-aspirin outweigh risks of hemorrhage. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Advancing structured decision-making in drug regulation at the FDA and EMA.

The recent benefit-risk framework (BRF) developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is intended to improve the clarity and consistency in communicating the reasoning behind the FDA's decisions, acting as an important advancement in US drug regulation. In the PDUFA VI implementation plan, the FDA states that it will continue to explore more structured or quantitative decision analysis approaches; however, it restricts their use within the current BRF that is purely qualitative. By contrast, European regulators and researchers have been long exploring the use of quantitative decision analysis approaches for evaluating drug benefit-risk balance. In this paper, we show how quantitative modelling, backed by decision theory, could complement and extend the FDA's BRF to better support the appraisal of evidence and improve decision outcomes. After providing relevant scientific definitions for benefit-risk assessment and describing the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) frameworks, we explain the components of and differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches. We present lessons learned from the EMA experience with the use of quantitative modelling and we provide evidence of its benefits, illustrated by a real case study that helped to resolve differences of judgements among EMA regulators.

An integrated benefit-risk assessment of cobalt-containing alloys used in medical devices: Implications for regulatory requirements in the European Union.

In 2017, the European Union (EU) Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) recommended the classification of metallic cobalt (Co) as Category 1B with respect to its carcinogenic and reproductive hazard potential and Category 2 for mutagenicity but did not evaluate the relevance of these classifications for patients exposed to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) used in medical devices. CoCA are inherently different materials from Co metal from a toxicological perspective and thus require a separate assessment. CoCA are biocompatible materials with a unique combination of properties including strength, durability, and a long history of safe use that make them uniquely suited for use in a wide-range of medical devices. Assessments were performed on relevant preclinical and clinical carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity data for Co and CoCA to meet the requirements under the EU Medical Device Regulation triggered by the ECHA re-classification (adopted in October 2019 under the 14th Adaptation to Technical Progress to CLP) and to address their relevance to patient safety. The objective of this review is to present an integrated overview of these assessments, a benefit-risk assessment and an examination of potential alternative materials. The data support the conclusion that the exposure to CoCA in medical devices via clinically relevant routes does not represent a hazard for carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity. Additionally, the risk for the adverse effects that are known to occur with elevated Co concentrations (e.g., cardiomyopathy) are very low for CoCA implant devices (infrequent reports often reflecting a unique catastrophic failure event out of millions of patients) and negligible for CoCA non-implant devices (not measurable/no case reports). In conclusion, the favorable benefit-risk profile also in relation to possible alternatives presented herein strongly support continued use of CoCA in medical devices.

Drug safety in multiple sclerosis: From reporting to signal detection and benefit-risk management.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacovigilance (PV) rules emerged in the late 60s-early 70s. Since that time, the World Health Organization Center for International Drug Monitoring carries out the corresponding tasks. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system that generally starts in young adults between 20 and 40 years of age. Over the last 25 years, MS patients have benefited from the development of a plethora of disease modifying drugs (DMD). These changes in the therapeutic armamentarium have been associated with some serious adverse reactions challenging health authorities and neurologists involved in treatment and care for MS patients. METHODS: The present review aims to describe, for MS DMDs, how adverse drug reactions are reported during clinical trials and the post-marketing period and how important signal detection and benefit-risk management have been in this disease until now. Several examples are reported to illustrate the different steps of PV processes. CONCLUSION: Improvement of the PV system procedures has led to significant progress in the detection of signals, allowing better assessment of the benefit-risk balance and the implementation of risk management plans for MS treatments. The involvement of neurologists is essential to improve knowledge on the benefit-risk balance of these drugs. In addition, adverse drug reactions reporting by persons with MS should be encouraged.

Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data. METHODS: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions. RESULTS: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences. CONCLUSION: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

The utility of real-world evidence for benefit-risk assessment, communication, and evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Case studies.

PURPOSE: In recent years, novel types of real-world evidence (RWE) have played a role in various decision-making processes relating to medicinal products, including regulatory approval, patient access, health technology assessment, safety monitoring, clinical use, and post-approval lifecycle management. We therefore reviewed the potential utility of RWE in the cycle of medicinal product benefit-risk (BR) assessment, communication/risk minimization and evaluation ("BRACE"). METHODS: A convenience sample of illustrative studies was drawn from the published literature and examined. Specifically, we examined the purpose for using RWE, the type of RWE used, its novelty and how it might be integrated with other data and activities of the BRACE cycle, and how it contributed to regulatory decision-making. RESULTS: Eight studies were selected with each illustrating a different activity in the BRACE cycle ranging from BR assessment in the preapproval setting, post-approval assessment of safety or effectiveness, communicating BR information to patients and healthcare professionals, and evaluating the effectiveness of risk minimization initiatives to support a positive BR balance. CONCLUSIONS: RWE has an important role in informing regulatory decision-making regarding the BR management of medicines. With increasing digitalization, facilitating data collection and stakeholder engagement in health, this role is only expected to expand in the future. To reach the full potential of RWE, both regulators and sponsors will need to be familiar with a range of existing and emerging methods for generating and analyzing such evidence appropriately and achieve convergence regarding how different types of RWE can best be used to inform BR management and decision-making.