A case study using the PrOACT-URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment.

While benefit-risk assessment is a key component of the drug development and maintenance process, it is often described in a narrative. In contrast, structured benefit-risk assessment builds on established ideas from decision analysis and comprises a qualitative framework and quantitative methodology. We compare two such frameworks, applying multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) within the PrOACT-URL framework and weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB), within the BRAT framework. These are applied to a case study of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. We focus on the practical considerations of applying these methods and give recommendations for visual presentation of results. In the case study, we found structured benefit-risk analysis to be a useful tool for structuring, quantifying, and communicating the relative benefit and safety profiles of drugs in a transparent, rational and consistent way. The two frameworks were similar. MCDA is a generic and flexible methodology that can be used to perform a structured benefit-risk in any common context. wNCB is a special case of MCDA and is shown to be equivalent to an extension of the number needed to treat (NNT) principle. It is simpler to apply and understand than MCDA and can be applied when all outcomes are measured on a binary scale.

A once-daily, oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban (BAY 59-7939), for thromboprophylaxis after total hip replacement.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban (BAY 59-7939)--an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor--could be an alternative to heparins and warfarin for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. METHODS AND RESULTS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-comparator-controlled, multinational, dose-ranging study assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily rivaroxaban relative to enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement. Patients (n=873) were randomized to once-daily oral rivaroxaban doses of 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 mg (initiated 6 to 8 hours after surgery) or a once-daily subcutaneous enoxaparin dose of 40 mg (given the evening before and > or = 6 hours after surgery). Study drugs were continued for an additional 5 to 9 days; mandatory bilateral venography was performed the following day. The primary end point (composite of any deep vein thrombosis, objectively confirmed pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality) was observed in 14.9%, 10.6%, 8.5%, 13.5%, 6.4%, and 25.2% of patients receiving 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 mg rivaroxaban, and 40 mg enoxaparin, respectively (n=618, per-protocol population). No significant dose-response relationship was found for efficacy (P=0.0852). Major postoperative bleeding was observed in 2.3%, 0.7%, 4.3%, 4.9%, 5.1%, and 1.9% of patients receiving 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 mg rivaroxaban, and 40 mg enoxaparin, respectively (n=845, safety population), representing a significant dose-response relationship (P=0.0391). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban showed efficacy and safety similar to enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total hip replacement, with the convenience of once-daily oral dosing and without the need for coagulation monitoring. When both efficacy and safety are considered, these results suggest that 10 mg rivaroxaban once daily should be investigated in phase III studies.