State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: Medicines

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 26-32

  Luteijn, J M ^a   White, B C ^a   Gunnlaugsdottir H ^b   Holm, F ^c   Kalogeras, N ^d   Leino, O ^e   Magnusson S H ^b   Odekerken, G ^d   Pohjola, M V ^e   Tijhuis, M J ^d,f   Tuomisto, J T ^e   Ueland, O ^g   McCarron, P A ^a   Verhagen, H ^a,f,h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

^b Matis ohf Iceland   (Iceland)

^c FoodGroup Denmark and Nordic NutriScience   (Denmark)

^d MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^g NOFIMA   (Norway)

^h MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Benefit risk assessment; Drug approval methods; Health technology assessment; Pharmacovigilance; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG CONTROL; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG FORMULARY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; EUROPEAN UNION; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

DRUG DISCOVERY; EUROPEAN UNION; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84155186637     PISSN: 02786915     EISSN: 18736351     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.06.008     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Abroms L., Maibach E., Lyon-Daniel K., Feldman S.R. What is the best approach to reducing birth defects associated with isotretinoin?. PLoS Med. 2006, 3:e483. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030483.
2. Avorn J. Evaluating drug effects in the post-Vioxx world: there must be a better way. Circulation 2006, 113:2173-2176. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.625749.
3. Birch S., Gafni A. Economists' dream or nightmare? Maximizing health gains from available resources using the NICE guidelines. Health. Econ. Policy. Law. 2007, 2:193-202. 10.1017/S1744133107004057.
4. Botting J. The history of thalidomide. Drug News Perspect. 2002, 15:604-611.
5. Brook R.H., Lohr K.N. Efficacy, effectiveness, variations, and quality. Boundary-crossing Res. Med. Care 1985, 23:710-722.
6. Carroll, S., 2009. Is there anything nicer than NICE? A question the conservative shadow health team is right to ask. Value Health. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00546.x.
7. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP), 2007. Report of the CHMP working group on benefit-risk assessment models and methods. Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/15404/2007.
8. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP), 2008. Reflection paper on benefit-risk assessment methods in the context of the evaluation of marketing authorisation applications of medicinal products for human use. Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/15404/2007.
9. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), 1998. Benefit-Risk Balance for Marketed Drugs: Evaluating Safety Signals. Report of CIOMS Working Group IV. Available from http://www.cioms.ch/publications/g4-benefit-risk.pdf.
10. Clement F.M., Harris A., Li J.J., Yong K., Lee K.M., Manns B.J. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA 2009, 302:1437-1443. 10.1001/jama.2009.1409.
11. Dakin H.A., Devlin N.J., Odeyemi I.A. "Yes", "No" or "Yes, but" ? Multinomial modelling of NICE decision-making. Health Policy 2006, 77:352-367. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.08.008.
12. Drummond M.F., Schwartz J.S., Jonsson B., Luce B.R., Neumann P.J., Siebert U., Sullivan S.D. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2008, 24:244-258. (discussion 362-8). 10.1017/S0266462308080343.
13. European Commission (EC), 2001. Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official Journal L - 311, 28/11/2001, 67-128.
14. European Commission (EC), 2005. Volume 2A - Procedures for Marketing Authorisation.
15. European Commission (EC), 2008. Volume 9A - The Rules Governing Medicines Products in the European Union: Guidelines on Pharmacovigilance for Medicinal Products for Human Use.
16. Edwards I.R., Aronson J.K. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000, 356:1255-1259. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02799-9.
17. Eichler H.G., Bloechl-Daum B., Abadie E., Barnett D., Konig F., Pearson S. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010, 9:277-291. 10.1038/nrd3079.
18. European Medicines Agency (EMA), 2010. Authorisation Procedures in the European Union.
19. European Medicines Agency (EMA), 2010a. European Medicines Agency Benefit-Risk methodology project. Doc. Ref. EMA/213482/2010.
20. European Medicines Agency (EMA), 2010b. Benefit-risk methodology project Work package 2 report: Applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment. Available from http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2010/10/WC500097750.pdf.
21. Garrison L.P. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows?. Pharmacoeconomics 2010, 28:855-865. 10.2165/11538640-000000000-00000.
22. Garrison L.P., Towse A., Bresnahan B.W. Assessing a structured, quantitative health outcomes approach to drug risk-benefit analysis. Health. Aff. (Millwood) 2007, 26:684-695. 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.684.
23. Guo, J.J., Pandey, S., Doyle, J., Bian, B., Lis, Y., Raisch, D.W., 2010. A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00725.x.
24. Honig P. Benefit and risk assessment in drug development and utilization: a role for clinical pharmacology. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 82:109-112. 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100277.
25. Howard, S., Harrison L., 2004. NICE guidance implementation tracking: data sources, methodology and results. A Report Commissioned by the NICE. Available from Bicester: Abacus International. http://www.nice.org.uk/.
26. Juni P., Nartey L., Reichenbach S., Sterchi R., Dieppe P.A., Egger M. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 2004, 364:2021-2029. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17514-4.
27. Lee P.Y., Alexander K.P., Hammill B.G., Pasquali S.K., Peterson E.D. Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2001, 286:708-713.
28. Lexchin J., Bero L.A., Djulbegovic B., Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003, 326:1167-1170. 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.
29. Lu Z. Technical challenges in designing post-marketing eCRFs to address clinical safety and pharmacovigilance needs. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2010, 31:108-118. 10.1016/j.cct.2009.11.004.
30. Moore N., Begaud B. Improving pharmacovigilance in Europe. BMJ 2010, 340:c1694.
31. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2008. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. Available from http://www.nice.org.uk/.
32. Psaty B.M., Weiss N.S., Furberg C.D., Koepsell T.D., Siscovick D.S., Rosendaal F.R., Smith N.L., Heckbert S.R., Kaplan R.C., Lin D., Fleming T.R., Wagner E.H. Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA 1999, 282:786-790.
33. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ 2001, 323:1300-1303.
34. Trifiro G., Fourrier-Reglat A., Sturkenboom M.C., Diaz Acedo C., Van Der Lei J., Group E.U.-A.D.R. The EU-ADR project: preliminary results and perspective. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2009, 148:43-49.
35. Walker S., McAuslane N., Liberti L., Salek S. Measuring benefit and balancing risk: strategies for the benefit-risk assessment of new medicines in a risk-averse environment. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 85:241-246. 10.1038/clpt.2008.277.