A Survey to Assess the Current Status of Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment in the Global Drug and Medical Device Industry.

BACKGROUND: This industry survey was conducted to gain insight into the ways structured Benefit-Risk assessment (sBRA) of medical products is approached across drug or medical device developing companies, including frameworks and methods that are currently used and areas where future work is being planned. METHODS: A survey containing 28 questions covering five key areas of sBRA was set-up and shared with representatives from the participating companies. Each company was asked to complete a single survey response including inputs across the company's multidisciplinary key representatives involved in benefit-risk assessment. RESULTS: Of the 26 participating companies, 21 (81%) are conducting sBRA. Considering these 21 qualitative frameworks were used by almost every company (19, 90%), while only 12 (57%) have used a quantitative method. Many companies have sBRA training (17, 81%), document templates (16,76%), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)/checklists (13, 62%), and /or best practice manuals/examples (12,57%) available. Considering all 26 companies Software tools (15, 58%) and BR planning documents (11,42%) were identified as areas into which many companies intend to put effort. CONCLUSIONS: The industry survey confirmed a wide usage of sBRA by many companies involved in research and development. Nevertheless, sBRA is evolving and several future opportunities like the implementation of visualization tools were identified by the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies. Finally, challenges like the cross-functional comprehension of the added value of sBRA are still seen.

Planning Benefit-Risk Assessments Using Visualizations.

A Benefit Risk Assessment Plan (BRAP) describes the assessments planned to determine whether the benefits of an investigational drug outweigh the risks. The plan can have two sections, one with timelines for aligning resources with decision milestones and the other for pre-specifying assessments for decision milestones. Regulatory guidance recommends a proactive planning process over an ad-hoc process. However, very little has been published about proactive plans themselves. This article works through a hypothetical example visualizing a series of assessments across the drug development lifecycle. Based on a regulatory framework, the planning process starts with assessing the medical condition and current treatment options. These early assessments bring out major considerations in assessing the investigational drug.

Pooling Different Safety Data Sources: Impact of Combining Solicited and Spontaneous Reports on Signal Detection In Pharmacovigilance.

INTRODUCTION: The volume of adverse events (AEs) collected, analysed, and reported has been increasing at a rapid rate for over the past 10 years, largely due to the growth of solicited programmes. The proportion of various forms of solicited case data has evolved over time, with the main relative volume increase coming from Patient Support Programmes. In this study, we sought to examine the impact of the pooling of AE report data from solicited sources with data from spontaneous sources to safety signal detection using disproportionality analysis methods. METHODS: Two conditions were explored in which disproportionality scores from hypothetical drugs were evaluated in a simulated safety database. The first condition held occurrence of events constant and varied solicited case volume, while the second condition varied both proportion of occurrence of events and solicited case volume. RESULTS: In the first setting, where all AE terms have the same probability to occur with any drug, increasing volumes of solicited cases while keeping occurrence of events constant leads to reduced variability in disproportionality scores, consequently reducing or eliminating identified signals of disproportionate reporting. In the second setting, varying both case volume and reporting rates can mask true safety signals and falsely identify signals where there are none. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of simulated data suggests that pooling AE data from solicited sources with spontaneous case data may impact the results of disproportionality analyses, masking true safety signals and identifying false positives. Therefore, increased volumes of safety data do not necessarily correlate with improved safety signal detection.

Statistical Practices of Safety Monitoring: An Industry Survey.

The Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association (ASA) formed a Safety Monitoring Working Group to strengthen collaborations between biostatisticians and safety scientists. The task began by surveying current needs and practices regarding available statistical safety tools and methods, regulatory guidance, and processes needed to support their implementation. The goal is for biostatisticians to become fully engaged safety team members by having the necessary safety skill set including appropriate methodology, regulatory guidance and access to appropriate tools. In this publication, we will discuss our survey results that reveal current practices at 22 pharmaceutical companies and demonstrate how the survey instrument can be used to map an action plan for meeting the demand for improved quantitative safety monitoring.

Benefit-Risk Evaluation and Decision Making: Some Practical Insights.

Pharmaceutical drugs and devices are increasingly evaluated by quantitative tools that combine benefit and risk. These tools vary by their limitations and desirable properties, which may confuse the decision-making process. Experts from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and industry shared their perspectives at the 2012 American Statistical Association (ASA) Biopharmaceutical Section FDA-Industry Statistics Workshop, and these insights are presented here. First, benefit-risk terminology is given to better understand subtle distinctions. Next, pragmatic considerations in endpoint selection are given that distinguish between benefit-risk assessment and analysis of clinical trials. Then the strengths of weighting methods, including ranking, utilities, and risk tolerance for assessing the trade-off between benefits and risks, are compared. The last topic presented is summarizing information to ease the interpretation, transparency, and ability to support decisions. Benefit-risk methods are moving towards a unified paradigm to make selection of endpoints, weights, and metrics easier and more structured. This will lead to better decision-making based on a transparent assessment and clear interpretability.

Vardenafil improves ejaculation success rates and self-confidence in men with erectile dysfunction due to spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the oral phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor, vardenafil, on ejaculation rates and self-confidence in men with spinal cord injury (SCI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal command of male sexual functions is often seriously impaired by traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). A high proportion of men with SCI cannot ejaculate during sexual intercourse. SCI-related ejaculatory disorders are often responsible for male infertility. Sexual dysfunction associated with SCI can also affect men's self-confidence. METHODS: In this 12-week study, 418 men aged >or=18 years with erectile dysfunction >6 months resulting from a traumatic SCI were randomized to vardenafil (n = 207) or placebo (n = 211) 10 mg for 4 weeks, then maintained or titrated to 5 or 20 mg at weeks 4 and 8. Assessments included questions of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) about ejaculation success and orgasmic perception; the Global Confidence Question; and quality-of-life scales to measure psychological well-being, self-esteem, depression, and mental health status. RESULTS: Overall per patient ejaculation success rates were significantly greater with vardenafil than placebo over 12 weeks of treatment (19% vs. 10%; P < 0.001). At last observation carried forward, the IIEF "orgasmic function" score increased from 2.9 at baseline to 4.0 for vardenafil and from 3.0 at baseline to 3.4 for placebo. Sixteen percent of men receiving vardenafil and 8% receiving placebo felt orgasm "almost always" or "always" at weeks 8-12, compared with 4% and 6%, respectively, at baseline. Significant improvements in confidence scores were observed with vardenafil compared with placebo (P < 0.0001). There were no clinically significant differences between vardenafil and placebo in the quality-of-life measures at the study endpoint, but these had been in the normal range at baseline. CONCLUSION: Vardenafil significantly improved ejaculation and self-confidence in men with erectile dysfunction due to SCI.

Erectile response to vardenafil in men with a history of nonresponse to sildenafil: a time-from-dosing descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil hydrochloride in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and a history of nonresponse to sildenafil citrate have previously been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this descriptive analysis was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil at various times after dosing in men with ED and a history of nonresponse to sildenafil and who chose to attempt sexual intercourse between 0.25 and 6 hours after dosing with vardenafil. METHODS: This analysis used data from a previously published 12-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled study conducted at 41 hospitals and outpatient clinics across Australia, Europe, Asia, and North America. In that study, men with ED and sildenafil nonresponse, defined using 6 rigorous criteria (including nonresponse to the highest recommended dose, 100 mg/d) were assigned to receive vardenafil 10 mg or placebo QD. At study weeks 4 and 8, patients in both groups were given the option to maintain the 10-mg/d dose, or have the dose titrated to 5 or 20 mg/d. The present analysis used data from patient diaries completed daily, which included information concerning attempts at sexual intercourse, time from dosing to attempt, penetration, and maintenance of erection sufficient for successful intercourse. At week 12, diary data were categorized into time intervals (in hours) after dosing. For each interval, the per-patient success rate was based on the total number of attempts made in that interval. Comparative statistics were not performed on the time-interval analysis. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study. Data concerning the primary end point were reported previously. RESULTS: A total of 463 men were enrolled, of whom 457 were included in the safety analysis (vardenafil, n = 231; placebo, n = 226) and 454 in the intent-to-treat analysis (vardenafil, n = 229; placebo, n = 225; mean age, 60.1 vs 59.0 years; mean body mass index, 28.7 vs 28.0 kg/m2). Six patients were excluded from the safety analysis (2 patients did not use study medication [placebo group], postbaseline safety data unavailable in 4 patients [2 in each study group]). Men receiving vardenafil had numerically greater penetration and completion success rates compared with those receiving placebo at all time intervals. Penetration success rates were numerically higher with vardenafil compared with placebo as early as within 0.25 hour after dosing (62% vs 30%); efficacy continued beyond 6 hours after dosing in 77% and 50% of patients, respectively. Similarly, vardenafil-treated patients had numerically greater completion success rates compared with those receiving placebo at 0.25 hour (53% vs 12%) and beyond 6 hours after dosing (70% vs 24%). The most common drug-related adverse events in the vardenafil and placebo groups were flushing (7% vs 1%), headache (6% vs 2%), and nasal congestion (5% vs <1%). CONCLUSIONS: This descriptive analysis suggests that erection sufficient for penetration and intercourse completion was achieved within 0.25 hour and lasted for >6 hours after dosing with vardenafil 10 mg in these men with mostly moderate to severe ED and a history of nonresponse to sildenafil and who chose to make attempts during those intervals. The drug was generally well tolerated.

Erectile response with vardenafil in sildenafil nonresponders: a multicentre, double-blind, 12-week, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled erectile dysfunction clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of vardenafil in patients previously unresponsive to sildenafil. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre, double-blind, 12-week, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled trial was conducted, involving 463 men aged > or = 18 years with moderate-to-severe erectile dysfunction (ED) and who were unresponsive to sildenafil (by history). After a 4-week treatment-free run-in, patients received placebo or vardenafil 10 mg with the option to maintain current dose or to titrate by one dose level (5, 10 or 20 mg) based on efficacy and tolerability at 4 and 8 weeks. Outcome measures were the erectile function (EF) domain score of the International Index of Erectile Function, two Sexual Encounter Profile diary questions (vaginal penetration and maintenance of erection until successful completion of intercourse), and the Global Assessment Question (GAQ). RESULTS: There was significantly better EF with vardenafil than with placebo throughout the study. The least-square mean EF domain scores increased from 9.3 at baseline to 17.6 at the 'last' observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis with vardenafil (P < 0.001). Overall least-square mean per-patient success rates more than doubled for penetration (30.3% to 62.3%) and quadrupled for successful intercourse (10.5% to 46.1%) with vardenafil. Improved erections (positive response to the GAQ) were reported by 61.8% of patients receiving vardenafil and 14.7% of those receiving placebo at LOCF (P < 0.001). Normal EF (domain score > or = 26) was achieved by 30% of patients receiving vardenafil and 6% receiving placebo at LOCF (P < 0.001). Adverse events were infrequent and representative of the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor profile. CONCLUSION: Vardenafil is an effective and generally safe treatment for ED, even in men unresponsive to sildenafil (by history).