Net efficacy adjusted for risk: Further developments

Expert Opinion on Drug Safety

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 649-654

  Boada, J ^a   Boada, C ^b   Garcia, M M ^b   Rodriguez, C ^b   Garcia, M ^b   Fernandez, E ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA LAGUNA   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE CANARIAS   (Spain)

Author keywords

Benefit:risk analysis; Clinical trials; Intention to treat analysis; Meta analysis; NEAR; Per protocol analysis

Indexed keywords

BROMOCRIPTINE; CABERGOLINE; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

AMENORRHEA; CLINICAL TRIAL; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; HYPERPROLACTINEMIA; LOW DRUG DOSE; MYALGIA; NAUSEA; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR; SECONDARY PREVENTION; STROKE;

ANIMALS; DRUG THERAPY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 70449493531     PISSN: 14740338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/14740330903241576     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Chuang-Stein C, Mohberg N, Sinkula M. Three measures for simultaneously evaluating benefit and risks using categorical data from clinical trials. Stat Med 1991;10:1349-1359
2. Tubert-Bitter P, Bloch DA, Raynauld J. Comparing the bivariate effects of toxicity and efficacy of treatments. Stat Med 1995;14:1129-1141
3. Schulzer M, Mancini G. 'Unqualified success' and 'unmitigated failure': number-needed-to-treat-related concepts for assessing treatment efficacy in the presence of treatment-induced adverse events. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:704-712
4. Shakespeare T, Gebski V, Veness M, et al. Improving interpretation of clinical studies by use of confidence levels, clinical significance curves, and risk: Benefit contours. Lancet 2001;357:1349-1353
5. Holden W. Benefit-risk analysis. Drug Saf 2003;26:853-862
6. Sutton A, Cooper N, Abrams K, et al. A bayesian approach to evaluating net clinical benefit allowed for parameter uncertainty. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:26-40
7. Boada JN, Boada C, Garc?́a-Sáiz M, et al. Net Efficacy Adjusted for Risk (NEAR): A simple procedure for measuring risk: Benefit balance. PLoS ONE 2008;3(10):e3580. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003580
8. Webster J, Piscitelli G, Polli A, et al. A comparison of cabergoline and bromocriptine in the treatment of hyperprolactinemic amenorrhea. NEJM 1994;331:904-909
9. Josan K, Majumdar S, McAlister D. The efficacy and safety of intensive statin therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ 2008;178:576-584
10. Friedman M, Woodcock J, Lumpkin M, et al. The safety of newly approved medicines. JAMA 1999;218:1728-1734
11. Lexchin J. Drug withdrawals from the canadian market for safety reasons, 1963-2004. CMAJ 2005;172:765-767
12. De Backer T, Vander-Stichele R, Van Bortel L. Bias in benefit-risk appraisal in older products: The case of buflomedil for intermittent claudication. Drug Saf 2009;32:283-291
13. Walker S, McAuslane N, Liberti L, et al. Measuring benefit and balancing risk: strategies for the benefit-risk assessment of new medicines in a risk-adverse environment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009;85:241-246
14. Dieppe P, Bartlett Ch, Davey P, et al. Balancing benefits and harms: The example of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. BMJ 2004;329:31-34
15. Korn D, Ehringhaus S. Principles for strengthening the integrity of clinical research. PLoS Clin Trials 2006;1(1):e1. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pctr. 0010001
16. Smith R, Roberts I. Patient safety requires a new way to publish clinical trials. PLoS Clin Trials 2006;1(1):e6. DOI:10.1371/journal.pctr.0010006
17. Wysowsky D, Swartz L. Adverse drug event surveillance and drug withdrawals in the United States, 1969-2002: The importance of reporting suspected reactions. Arch Int Med 2005;165:1363-1369
18. European Medicines Agency. Note for guidance on clinical safety data management: Definitions and standards for expedited reporting (CPMP/ICH/377/95)
19. Karch FE, Lasagna L. Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977;21:247-254