Assessing the credibility of a drug's effects: identification and judgment of uncertainty by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board.

Medicine regulators need to judge whether a drug's favorable effects outweigh its unfavorable effects based on a dossier submitted by an applicant, such as a pharmaceutical company. Because scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain, regulators also need to judge the credibility of these effects by identifying and evaluating uncertainties. We performed an ethnographic study of assessment procedures at the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and describe how regulators evaluate the credibility of an applicant's claims about the benefits and risks of a drug in practice. Our analysis shows that regulators use an investigative approach, which illustrates the effort required to identify uncertainties. Moreover, we show that regulators' expectations about the presentation, the design, and the results of studies can shape how they perceive a medicine's dossier. We highlight the importance of regulatory experience and expertise in the identification and evaluation of uncertainties. In light of our observations, we provide two recommendations to reduce avoidable uncertainty: less reliance on evidence generated by the applicant; and better communication about, and enforcement of, regulatory frameworks toward drug developers.

Benefit-Risk Trade-offs and Patient Preferences for Therapy Selection in Ulcerative Colitis: a Multicountry Preference Study.

BACKGROUND: To help navigate the complex treatment landscape of ulcerative colitis (UC), we quantified the benefit-risk trade-offs that patients were willing to make when choosing treatment. METHODS: Patients completed an online discrete choice experiment. Eligible patients had a UC diagnosis for ≥6 months, were aged ≥18 years, and resided in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or the UK. Patients chose between 2 hypothetical treatments set up to ensure trade-offs were made. Clinical trial data, literature review, and patient interviews identified treatment attributes. Relative attribute importance (RAI) scores and maximum acceptable risks were generated. A patient-centric benefit-risk assessment of 200 mg of filgotinib was conducted as an example to show how measured trade-offs can be used. RESULTS: Overall, 631 patients participated; patients had a mean age of 42.2 years and were predominantly male (75.3%). Achieving and maintaining clinical remission was the most important factor for patients (RAI 32.4%); to achieve this, patients were willing to accept slightly higher risks of blood clots, serious infections, and malignancies compared with lower risk treatment profiles. Patients also valued the convenience of oral treatments, avoiding steroids, and the ability to attend school/work. The patient-centric benefit-risk assessment suggested patients are significantly more likely to prefer Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib over placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving clinical remission was the highest treatment priority for patients. To attain this, patients were willing to accept some slightly higher risk treatment profiles. Patient choices in the benefit-risk assessment suggested patients were significantly more likely to prefer filgotinib over placebo.

Patients were willing to accept slightly higher risk treatment profiles over lower risk treatment profiles for an increased chance of achieving and maintaining remission. A patient-centric benefit-risk assessment suggested 200 mg of filgotinib had an acceptable benefit-risk profile.

Selecting appropriate excipients for paediatric dosage form - Paediatric excipients risk assessment (PERA) framework - Part 1.

Excipients are often the major component of the formulation that critically affect the dosage form, manufacturing process, product performance, stability and safety. They exert different roles and functions in a dosage form. Selecting excipients with appropriate safety and tolerability is a major hurdle in paediatric formulation development. The suitability of a particular excipient will be dependent on the context of its use with regard to the paediatric age range, acute versus chronic use, and clinical risk-benefit of the disease, active and excipient. Scientists are encouraged to apply the principle of risk-benefit to assess the suitability of excipients to the specific paediatric population. Indicative list of parameters that should be taken into consideration and hierarchy of information sources when assessing the excipients risks is provided by regulatory agencies. However, the approach to be taken and details of how the risk evaluation should be undertaken are lacking. There is a need for a systematic approach to selection of excipients and assessment of the risk of excipient exposure. The Paediatric Excipients Risk Assessment (PERA) framework developed and proposed in this paper provides a structured, systematic decision-making framework via customizable tools and processes that can help to improve the transparency and communications on the selection and justification of use of excipients in a paediatric formulation.

The life cycle of vaccines evaluated by the European Medicines Agency.

BACKGROUND: vaccines are complex products used in healthy populations. They should be carefully regulated, and benefits should clearly outweigh risks. OBJECTIVES: To describe the evidence used to support benefit-risk evaluations of vaccines centrally assessed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and to identify if real-world data (RWD) was used throughout the vaccine life cycle. METHODS: Cohort study of vaccines approved in the European Union. Inclusion criteria comprised having ATC code J07 and being centrally approved between 2012 and 2022. We collected data from regulatory documents, study protocols, and, when necessary, from scientific publications. Vaccines were followed from initial approval up to March 2023. RESULTS: We included 31 vaccines addressing 17 therapeutic areas. More than 390 studies were used in the process of initial marketing authorisation (MA) and monitoring, and 174 studies were listed in initial risk management plans. We also identified 93 studies in the EU PAS register. At MA, all vaccines had at least one pivotal trial and 27 vaccines had at least one supportive study. Most pivotal trials were randomized, double-blinded and active-controlled, with immunogenicity endpoints as primary outcome. RWD was used for extension of indications and monitoring of at least 4 vaccines, and the undertaking of RWE studies was foreseen in the RMP of at least 17 vaccines. DISCUSSION: Our study revealed an important reliance on randomized controlled trials with individual-level randomization, and a significant focus on immunogenicity endpoints. The use of RWD in vaccine assessments so far has been restricted to COVID-19, and despite its challenges and limitations, we believe that efforts to expand adoption of RWE in continuous benefit-risk assessments should be made. We further highlight the need to enhance data transparency and reporting standards since heterogeneity among regulatory documents made it difficult to identify all the studies considered in vaccine evaluations.

A Brighton Collaboration standardized template with key considerations for a benefit-risk assessment for the Comirnaty COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.

The Brighton Collaboration Benefit-Risk Assessment of VAccines by TechnolOgy (BRAVATO) Working Group evaluates the safety and other key features of new platform technology vaccines, including nucleic acid (RNA and DNA) vaccines. This manuscript uses the BRAVATO template to report the key considerations for a benefit-risk assessment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®, or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine) including the subsequent Original/Omicron BA.1, Original/Omicron BA.4-5 and Omicron XBB.1.5 variant-adapted vaccines developed by BioNTech and Pfizer to protect against COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Initial Emergency Use Authorizations or conditional Marketing Authorizations for the original BNT162b2 vaccine were granted based upon a favorable benefit-risk assessment taking into account clinical safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy data, which was subsequently reconfirmed for younger age groups, and by real world evidence data. In addition, the favorable benefit-risk assessment was maintained for the bivalent vaccines, developed against newly arising SARS-CoV-2 variants, with accumulating clinical trial data.

[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.

Clinical Implications of Co-administering Apixaban with Key Interacting Medications.

With many available data sources, clinicians need to consider the benefit-risk profile of individual anticoagulants when balancing the need for anticoagulation, including evaluating the risks in patients with comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. This narrative review presents clinical data across multiple phases of drug development for the use of apixaban, a selective factor Xa inhibitor, when taken concomitantly with other agents, and evaluates the benefit-risk profile of apixaban with these interacting medications. Key subgroup analyses from the phase 3 ARISTOTLE trial (NCT00412984) are presented using data from patients who received either concomitant inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450 3A4 and/or P­glycoprotein. We also review the available evidence for the use of apixaban in patients with cancer-associated thromboembolism, as well as the use of apixaban in patients with COVID-19.

Analyzing the 7C psychological antecedents of vaccine acceptance throughout the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare sector workers in France: A repeated cross-sectional study (CappVac-Cov).

BACKGROUND: Across various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and related vaccine recommendations in France, we assessed the association of the 7C-psychological antecedents with vaccine uptake/intention for booster vaccination among healthcare-sector workers (HCSWs). We also assessed whether 7C-antecedent profiles changed over time. METHODOLOGY: The Research Group for the Prevention of Occupational Infections in Healthcare Workers (GERES) conducted three repeated web-surveys which were disseminated by email chain-referral among HCSWs throughout France. The questionnaires waves took place: July-November 2021, February-March 2022 and January-March 2023 (P2, P3 and P4). We also reanalysed data from a prior similar study conducted late 2020-early 2021 (Moirangthem et al. (2022)) (P1). To evaluate the association of 7C-items with vaccine uptake-intention for future vaccination, we estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) using robust variance Poisson regression. We report the 7C-item population attributable loss in vaccine intention. RESULTS: The four surveys (P1-P4) encompassed 5234, 339, 351 and 437 participants. At earlier stages of the vaccine campaign, the principal antecedents of vaccine intention were favorable perception of vaccination benefit-risk-balance (BRB) (vs. unfavorable, aPR: 2.32), reactance to employer encouragement for vaccination (motivates vs. dissuades-me, aPR:2.23), vaccine confidence (vs. not-being-confident, aPR: 1.71) and social conformism towards vaccination (favorable vs. skeptical opinion in private environment, aPR: 1.33). Under a vaccine mandate for HCSWs, only perceiving vaccination as a collective action was associated with current vaccine status (agree vs. disagree, aPR: 2.19). At later stages of the epidemic, hypothetical booster vaccine intentions were strongly associated with BRB perception (favorable vs. unfavorable, aPR: 2.07) and perceiving vaccination as a collective action (agree vs. disagree, aPR: 1.69). Fearing a severe side effect from vaccination decreased population vaccine intention by 26.2 %. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that both 7C-antecedents and their association with vaccine behaviour can change over time, and underscore the importance of assuring confidence in vaccine safety.

Research progress and prospects of benefit-risk assessment methods for umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in the clinical treatment of spinal cord injury.

Over the past decade, we have witnessed the development of cell transplantation as a new strategy for repairing spinal cord injury (SCI). However, due to the complexity of the central nervous system (CNS), achieving successful clinical translation remains a significant challenge. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (hUMSCs) possess distinct advantages, such as easy collection, lack of ethical concerns, high self-renewal ability, multilineage differentiation potential, and immunomodulatory properties. hUMSCs are promising for regenerating the injured spinal cord to a significant extent. At the same time, for advancing SCI treatment, the appropriate benefit and risk evaluation methods play a pivotal role in determining the clinical applicability of treatment plans. Hence, this study discusses the advantages and risks of hUMSCs in SCI treatment across four dimensions-comprehensive evaluation of motor and sensory function, imaging, electrophysiology, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) function-aiming to improve the rationality of relevant clinical research and the feasibility of clinical translation.

Guidance on risk-benefit assessment of foods.

The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose-response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value-based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk-benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice.

Assessing the benefit-risk balance of drugs. Some lessons from the COVID pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Drug efficacy and effectiveness are assessed respectively through clinical trials and pharmaco-epidemiological studies. However, relative and absolute benefits of drugs are distinct measures that must be considered in relation to the baseline risk of disease incidence, complication or progression. On the other hand, adverse drug reactions are independent of the basic risk but depend on the characteristics of the population treated. Given these prerequisites, how can we balance the benefits and risks of drugs? AREAS COVERED: We use the example of therapeutics evaluated during Covid to describe how assessing the benefit-risk balance of drugs is a complex process. EXPERT OPINION: Clinical trials are not designed to identify rare adverse events, underscoring the necessity for a pharmacovigilance system. Evaluating the balance between the benefits and risks of drugs is an ongoing process, demanding the simultaneous analysis of data from clinical trials, potential drug-drug interactions, pharmacovigilance monitoring and pharmaco-epidemiological studies, to identify potential safety concerns. In addition, pharmacologists must play a major role in educating the general public about drugs, aiding in the accurate interpretation of the benefit-risk balance and preventing misinformation.

A proposal for using benefit-risk methods to improve the prominence of adverse event results when reporting trials.

Adverse events suffer from poor reporting within randomised controlled trials, despite them being crucial to the evaluation of a treatment. A recent update to the CONSORT harms checklist aims to improve reporting by providing structure and consistency to the information presented. We propose an extension wherein harms would be reported in conjunction with effectiveness outcome(s) rather than in silo to provide a more complete picture of the evidence acquired within a trial. Benefit-risk methods are designed to simultaneously consider both benefits and risks, and therefore, we believe these methods could be implemented to improve the prominence of adverse events when reporting trials. The aim of this article is to use case studies to demonstrate the practical utility of benefit-risk methods to present adverse events results alongside effectiveness results. Two randomised controlled trials have been selected as case studies, the Option-DM trial and the SANAD II trial. Using a previous review, a shortlist of 17 benefit-risk methods which could potentially be used for reporting RCTs was created. From this shortlist, three benefit-risk methods are applied across the two case studies. We selected these methods for their usefulness to achieve the aim of this paper and which are commonly used in the literature. The methods selected were the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework, net clinical benefit (NCB), and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3 × 3 table. Results using the benefit-risk method added further context and detail to the clinical summaries made from the trials. In the case of the SANAD II trial, the clinicians concluded that despite the primary outcome being improved by the treatment, the increase in adverse events negated the improvement and the treatment was therefore not recommended. The benefit-risk methods applied to this case study outlined the data that this decision was based on in a clear and transparent way. Using benefit-risk methods to report the results of trials can increase the prominence of adverse event results by presenting them alongside the primary efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. This ensures that all the factors which would be used to determine whether a treatment would be recommended are transparent to the reader.

Investigating Stability in Subgroup Identification for Stratified Medicine.

Subgroup analysis may be used to investigate treatment effect heterogeneity among subsets of the study population defined by baseline characteristics. Several methodologies have been proposed in recent years and with these, statistical issues such as multiplicity, complexity, and selection bias have been widely discussed. Some methods adjust for one or more of these issues; however, few of them discuss or consider the stability of the subgroup assignments. We propose exploring the stability of subgroups as a sensitivity analysis step for stratified medicine to assess the robustness of the identified subgroups besides identifying possible factors that may drive this instability. After applying Bayesian credible subgroups, a nonparametric bootstrap can be used to assess stability at subgroup-level and patient-level. Our findings illustrate that when the treatment effect is small or not so evident, patients are more likely to switch to different subgroups (jumpers) across bootstrap resamples. In contrast, when the treatment effect is large or extremely convincing, patients generally remain in the same subgroup. While the proposed subgroup stability method is illustrated through Bayesian credible subgroups method on time-to-event data, this general approach can be used with other subgroup identification methods and endpoints.

Patient Preferences for Benefit and Risk Associated With High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Ablation of Prostate Tissue in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Food and Drug Administration must make decisions about emerging high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) devices that may lack relevant clinical oncologic data but present with known side effects. This study aims to capture patients' perspective by quantifying their preferences regarding the available benefit and important side effects associated with HIFU for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preferences for HIFU outcomes were examined using a discrete choice experiment survey. Participants were asked to choose a preferred treatment option in 9 choice questions. Each included a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles that have similar attributes/outcomes with varying levels. Outcomes included prostate biopsy outcome and treatment-related risks of erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI). We calculated the maximum risk of side effect patients were willing to tolerate in exchange for increased benefit. Preferences were further explored via clinical and demographic data. RESULTS: About 223 subjects with a mean age of 64.8 years completed the survey. Respondents were willing to accept a 1.51%-point increase in new ED risk for a 1%-point increase in favorable biopsy outcome. They were also willing to accept a 0.93%-point increase in new UI risk for a 1%-point increase in biopsy outcome. Subjects who perceived their cancer to be more aggressive had higher risk tolerance for UI. Younger men were willing to tolerate less ED risk than older men. Respondents with greater than college level of education had a lower risk tolerance for ED or UI. CONCLUSIONS: Results may inform development and regulatory evaluation for future HIFU ablation devices by providing supplemental information from the patient perspective.

Fertility preservation before cancer treatment: the dilemma of saying 'no' as the price of glory.

A great deal of work has been carried out by professionals in reproductive medicine in order to raise awareness about fertility preservation (FP) techniques, particularly for women, and to ensure that FP is included in the care of young adults treated for cancer or a pathology requiring gonadotoxic treatment. If the importance of the development of our discipline is obvious, our militancy in favour of FP and our emotional projections must not make us forget that medical thinking must be carried out not only on a case-by-case basis, weighing up the benefit-risk balance, but also without losing sight that conceiving a child with one's own gametes is not a vital issue. The cultural importance given to the genetic link with offspring may bias patients' and physicians' decisions, while other ways of achieving parenthood exist, and are often more effective. Systematic information should be provided on the existence of FP techniques, but this should not lead to their systematic implementation, nor should it obscure that early information will also allow patients to begin projecting themselves in alternative options to become parents.

Optimal balance of benefit versus risk for tafenoquine in the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria.

A single 300 mg dose of tafenoquine (an 8-aminoquinoline), in combination with a standard 3-day course of chloroquine, is approved in several countries for the radical cure (prevention of relapse) of Plasmodium vivax malaria in patients aged ≥ 16 years. Despite this, questions have arisen on the optimal dose of tafenoquine. Before the availability of tafenoquine, a 3-day course of chloroquine in combination with the 8-aminoquinoline primaquine was the only effective radical cure for vivax malaria. The World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended standard regimen is 14 days of primaquine 0.25 mg/kg/day or 7 days of primaquine 0.5 mg/kg/day in most regions, or 14 days of primaquine 0.5 mg/kg/day in East Asia and Oceania, however the long treatment courses of 7 or 14 days may result in poor adherence and, therefore, low treatment efficacy. A single dose of tafenoquine 300 mg in combination with a 3-day course of chloroquine is an important advancement for the radical cure of vivax malaria in patients without glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, as the use of a single-dose treatment will improve adherence. Selection of a single 300 mg dose of tafenoquine for the radical cure of P. vivax malaria was based on collective efficacy and safety data from 33 studies involving more than 4000 trial participants who received tafenoquine, including over 800 subjects who received the 300 mg single dose. The safety profile of single-dose tafenoquine 300 mg is similar to that of standard-dosage primaquine 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days. Both primaquine and tafenoquine can cause acute haemolytic anaemia in individuals with G6PD deficiency; severe haemolysis can lead to anaemia, kidney damage, and, in some cases, death. Therefore, relapse prevention using an 8-aminoquinoline must be balanced with the need to avoid clinical haemolysis associated with G6PD deficiency. To minimize this risk, the WHO recommends G6PD testing for all individuals before the administration of curative doses of 8-aminoquinolines. In this article, the authors review key efficacy and safety data from the pivotal trials of tafenoquine and argue that the currently approved dose represents a favourable benefit-risk profile.

Exposure-Response Analyses for Belzutifan to Inform Dosing Considerations and Labeling.

Belzutifan (Welireg, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA) is an oral, potent hypoxia-inducible factor-2α inhibitor, recently approved in the United States for the treatment of von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) disease-associated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and other VHL disease-associated neoplasms. Safety and efficacy were investigated in two clinical studies: a Phase 1 dose escalation/expansion study in solid tumors and RCC and a Phase 2 study in VHL-RCC. A population pharmacokinetic model was used to estimate belzutifan exposures to facilitate exposure-response (E-R) analyses for efficacy and safety endpoints. Relationships between exposure and efficacy (overall response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, best overall tumor size response, and other endpoints), safety outcomes (Grade ≥3 anemia, Grade ≥3 hypoxia, and time to first dose reduction/dose interruption), and pharmacodynamic biomarkers (erythropoietin [EPO] and hemoglobin [Hgb]) were evaluated using various regression techniques and time-to-event analyses. Efficacy E-R was generally flat with non-significant positive trends with exposure. The safety E-R analyses demonstrated a lack of relationship for Grade ≥3 hypoxia and a positive relationship for Grade ≥3 anemia, with incidences also significantly dependent on baseline Hgb. Exposure-dependent reductions in EPO and Hgb were observed. Based on the cumulative benefit-risk assessment in VHL disease-associated neoplasms using E-R, no a priori dose adjustment is recommended for any subpopulation. These analyses supported the benefit-risk profile of belzutifan 120 mg once daily dosing in patients with VHL-RCC for labeling and the overall development program.

Safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin with pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) has shown promising antimyeloma activity in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) as a single agent. It was hypothesized that its multimodal activity may be enhanced by programmed cell death protein 1 pathway inhibition and activation of T cell-mediated antitumor responses. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of belamaf with pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. METHODS: DREAMM-4 (NCT03848845) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 study divided into dose-escalation (part 1) and dose-expansion (part 2) phases. Patients were ≥18 years old with ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 agent. Patients received belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg, part 1; 2.5 mg/kg, part 2) and 200 mg pembrolizumab for ≤35 cycles. RESULTS: Of 41 enrolled patients, 34 (n = 6 part 1, n = 28 part 2) who received 2.5 mg/kg belamaf plus pembrolizumab were included in this final analysis. Sixteen patients (47%) achieved an overall response. Minimal residual disease negativity was achieved in three of 10 patients who had very good partial response or better. Five of eight patients who had prior anti-B-cell maturation antigen therapy achieved partial response or better, including two who had B-cell maturation antigen-refractory disease. Common grade ≥3 adverse events were keratopathy (38%) and thrombocytopenia (29%). Despite belamaf-related ocular events, quality-of-life measures remained stable over time. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of DREAMM-4 demonstrated clinical activity and a favorable safety profile of belamaf plus pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. This trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov as NCT03848845.

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.

Structured benefit-risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit-risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: A semi-quantitative structured benefit-risk assessment was conducted for the label-extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit-risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results. RESULTS: The key benefits were defined as reduced all-cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non-fatal PE); the key risks were major and non-major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality versus other EEA-approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non-major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit-risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA-approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label-extension approval.