A Review of Quantitative Risk-Benefit Methodologies for Assessing Drug Safety and Efficacy-Report of the ISPOR Risk-Benefit Management Working Group

被引:141
作者
Guo, Jeff J. [1 ]
Pandey, Swapnil [2 ]
Doyle, John [3 ,4 ]
Bian, Boyang [1 ]
Lis, Yvonne [4 ]
Raisch, Dennis W. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cincinnati, Hlth Acad Ctr, Coll Pharm, Cincinnati, OH 45267 USA
[2] Kendle Int Inc, Cincinnati, OH USA
[3] Columbia Univ, Dept Epidemiol, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, New York, NY USA
[4] Cardiff Univ, Welsh Sch Pharm, Ctr Socioecon Res, Cardiff CF1 3XF, S Glam, Wales
[5] Univ New Mexico, Coll Pharm, Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA
关键词
drug safety; incremental risk-benefit ratio; multicriteria decision analysis; number needed to treat; risk-benefit assessment; risk-benefit plane; stated preference method; ADJUSTED SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; OPERABLE BREAST-CANCER; ADVERSE EVENT RISKS; Q-TWIST ANALYSIS; POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN; ADJUVANT THERAPY; NEW-MODEL; PREFERENCES; QUALITY; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00725.x
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objective: Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals. Methods: Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. Results: Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk-benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk-benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on subjective weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk. Conclusions: Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk-benefit profile.
引用
收藏
页码:657 / 666
页数:10
相关论文
共 86 条
[1]   Adjuvant interferon treatment for melanoma [J].
Agarwala, SS ;
Kirkwood, JM .
HEMATOLOGY-ONCOLOGY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 1998, 12 (04) :823-+
[2]  
Arlett PR, 2001, PHARM PHYS, V12, P12
[3]  
BAHRI P, 2007, PHARMACOVIGILANCE, pCH14
[4]  
BASS R, 1987, MED RISK BENEFIT DEC
[5]   Basic aspects of risk-benefit analysis [J].
Beckmann, J .
SEMINARS IN THROMBOSIS AND HEMOSTASIS, 1999, 25 (01) :89-95
[6]   Interpretation of drug risk and benefit: Individual and population perspectives [J].
Bjornson, DC .
ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2004, 38 (04) :694-699
[7]   A benefit-risk assessment of class III antiarrhythmic agents [J].
Brendorp, B ;
Pedersen, OD ;
Torp-Pedersen, C ;
Sahebzadah, N ;
Kober, L .
DRUG SAFETY, 2002, 25 (12) :847-865
[8]  
Bryan S, 1998, HEALTH ECON, V7, P595, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<595::AID-HEC381>3.3.CO
[9]  
2-5
[10]  
Burkell J, 2004, J MED LIBR ASSOC, V92, P200