Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Across the Product Lifecycle: Practical Considerations

被引:11
作者
Smith, Meredith Y. [1 ]
Benattia, Isma [1 ]
Strauss, Carmit [1 ]
Bloss, Laura [2 ]
Jiang, Qi [3 ]
机构
[1] Amgen Inc, Global Patient Safety & Labeling, One Amgen Ctr Dr, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 USA
[2] Amgen Inc, Global Regulatory Affairs & Safety, One Amgen Ctr Dr, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 USA
[3] Amgen Inc, Global Biostat, One Amgen Ctr Dr, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 USA
关键词
structured benefit-risk assessment; risk management plan; benefit-risk framework; medicinal product; European Medicines Agency (EMA); US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); METHODOLOGIES; MEDICINES; FUTURE;
D O I
10.1177/2168479017696272
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Assessing the benefit-risk profile of a medicinal product is a complex but fundamental activity that sponsors and regulators must perform throughout the product's lifecycle. In order to improve the transparency and consistency of the decision-making process, regulators and sponsors alike are increasingly applying a structured approach to benefit-risk assessment. However, to our knowledge, there has been little practical guidance in the published literature regarding how to embed such a process organizationally. This paper seeks to address this gap. Methods: Using a case study approach, we describe (1) how to integrate a lifecycle approach to structured benefit-risk assessment within a biopharmaceutical company; (2) key issues to anticipate during implementation, and (3) best practices and lessons learned to date. Results: Based on our experience, key prerequisites for successful implementation included the selection of a structured benefit-risk assessment (SBRA) framework; application of a core approach to conducting SBRA with an accompanying template; development of a supporting standard operating procedure; and cross-functional team training. Common implementation challenges encountered were (1) facilitating cross-functional team adoption of SBRA nomenclature and analytic methods, including the use of a value tree and effects table, and (2) applying the SBRA framework to different products with heterogeneous data sources. Conclusion: Conducting transparent, systematic benefit-risk evaluations is an emerging best practice for medicinal product lifecycle management. Our experience using such an approach resulted in improvements in the consistency, quality, conciseness and strategic value of our benefit-risk assessments, and increased transparency and harmonization in the communication of the product benefit-risk profile.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 508
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2012, ETH SCI ISS STUD SAF
  • [2] Selecting and Integrating Data Sources in Benefit-Risk Assessment: Considerations and Future Directions
    DiSantostefano, Rachael L.
    Berlin, Jesse A.
    Chuang-Stein, Christy
    Quartey, George
    Eichenbaum, Gary
    Levitan, Bennett
    [J]. STATISTICS IN BIOPHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2016, 8 (04): : 394 - 403
  • [3] EMA, Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) Module V-risk management systems (Rev 2)
  • [4] European Medicines Agency (EMA), WORK PACKAGE 3 REPOR
  • [5] European Medicines Agency (EMA), GUID DOC CONT CORAPP
  • [6] European Medicines Agency (EMA), 2012, WORK PACKAGE 4 REPOR
  • [7] The Future of Population-Based Postmarket Drug Risk Assessment: A Regulator's Perspective
    Hammad, T. A.
    Neyarapally, G. A.
    Iyasu, S.
    Staffa, J. A.
    Dal Pan, G.
    [J]. CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2013, 94 (03) : 349 - 358
  • [8] Hammad TA, STAT BIOPHARM RES
  • [9] Hammad TA, 2016, BENEFIT RISK ASSESSM
  • [10] Recommendations for benefit-risk assessment methodologies and visual representations
    Hughes, Diana
    Waddingham, Ed
    Mt-Isa, Shahrul
    Goginsky, Alesia
    Chan, Edmond
    Downey, Gerald F.
    Hallgreen, Christine E.
    Hockley, Kimberley S.
    Juhaeri, Juhaeri
    Lieftucht, Alfons
    Metcalf, Marilyn A.
    Noel, Rebecca A.
    Phillips, Lawrence D.
    Ashby, Deborah
    Micaleff, Alain
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2016, 25 (03) : 251 - 262