User menu

Accès à distance ? S'identifier sur le proxy UCLouvain

A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines-part 1: The development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis

Primary tabs

Mussen, Filip Salek, Sam Walker, Stuart

Purpose One of the most important uses of benefit-risk assessment pertains to approval of new medicines by regulatory authorities and the subsequent review of these products during their life-cycle when new safety and/or efficacy data becomes available. At present, there exist no validated, well-accepted models for benefit-risk assessment that have the appropriate degree of sophistication, and as a consequence no models are widely used by regulatory authorities or industry. The aim of the study was therefore to develop a new model for benefit-risk assessment of medicines using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Methods The MCDA methodology was used for a systematic approach to assess the benefit risk ratio of medicines. The reasons for adopting this approach were (1) taking multiple benefit and risk criteria into account, (2) making a judgement on the evidence and potential uncertainty because of the incompleteness of evidence, and (3) making trade-offs of the benefits against risks. Results It was demonstrated through a seven-step approach how MCDA is used to construct the model. Ten benefit and ten risk criteria were identified to form a value tree. Then fixed scales were established for all criteria and options on the criteria were scored. Weights were assigned for each criteria using swing-weighting. Finally sensitivity analysis was carried. Conclusions This novel approach based on MCDA has the potential for being applied as a new tool for judging and deciding on the benefits and risks, thereby helping regulators and industry in the development and approval of new medicines and their adequate use. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Document type Article de périodique (Journal article) – Article de recherche
Publication date 2007
Language Anglais
Journal information "Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety : an international journal" - Vol. 16, p. S2-S15 (2007)
Peer reviewed yes
Publisher John Wiley & Sons Ltd (Chichester)
issn 1053-8569
e-issn 1099-1557
Publication status Publié
Affiliation UCL
Keywords benefit-risk ; model ; multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
Links
  1. Working CIOMS Group IV. Benefit-Risk Balance for Marketed Drugs: Evaluating Safety Signals. CIOMS: Geneva, 1998.
  2. Holden, Drug Safe, 26, 853 (2003)
  3. Holden, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe, 2, 611 (2003)
  4. Bass R., Risk-benefit decisions in product licence applications, Medicines and Risk/Benefit Decisions (1987) ISBN:9789401079464 p.127-134, 10.1007/978-94-009-3221-0_13
  5. Veatch, Drug Inf J, 27, 1021 (1993)
  6. Schosser, Eur Surg Res, 34, 203 (2002)
  7. Rawlins M. D., Risk-benefit decisions in licensing changes, Medicines and Risk/Benefit Decisions (1987) ISBN:9789401079464 p.137-141, 10.1007/978-94-009-3221-0_15
  8. Herxheimer Andrew, Benefit, risk and harm, 10.18773/austprescr.2001.010
  9. Naimark, Medical Decis Making, 17, 152 (1997)
  10. Pignatti, Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 42, 123 (2002)
  11. Arlett, Pharmaceutical Physician, 12, 12 (2001)
  12. ICH topic M4: Common technical document for the registration of pharmaceuticals for human use. International Conference on Harmonization, 2000. (Accessed August 8, 2005, at http://www.emea.eu.int/index/indexh1.htm)
  13. Edwards, Drug Safe, 15, 1 (1996)
  14. Beckmann, Semin Thromb Hemost, 25, 89 (1999)
  15. , . What is the best model for assessing the benefit/risk ratio of my product? In Dilemmas and Solutions in Global Drug Development: Your Questions Answered, , (eds). PJB Publications Ltd: London, 2002; IIC3 1–15.
  16. Dowie, Health Care Anal, 4, 5 (1996)
  17. Mancini G. B. J., Schulzer M., Reporting Risks and Benefits of Therapy by Use of the Concepts of Unqualified Success and Unmitigated Failure : Applications to Highly Cited Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.1161/01.cir.99.3.377
  18. Waller, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 12, 17 (2003)
  19. Patten, Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe, 11, 165 (2002)
  20. Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Multi criteria analysis: a manual. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2000. (Accessed April 5, 2005, at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/about/multicriteria/index.htm)
  21. . Decisions with multiple objectives. J. Wiley & Sons: New York, 1976.
  22. Belton Valerie, Stewart Theodor J., Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, ISBN:9781461355823, 10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
  23. Spilker, Drug News Perspect, 7, 53 (1994)
  24. Miller, Drug Inf J, 27, 1011 (1993)
  25. European Medicines Agency. Guidance document; (co-) rapporteur day 70 critical assessment report. Revision 1. European Medicines Agency: London, 2004. (Accessed April 5, 2005 at http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/human/d70ar/d70ar.htm)
  26. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Manual of policies and procedures; clinical review template. Food and Drug Administration: Rockville, MD, 2004. (Accessed on April 5, 2005 at http://www.fda.gov/cder)
  27. Meyboom, Therapie, 54, 29 (1999)
  28. The Uppsala Monitoring Centre. The risks of being alive. In Viewpoint part I. WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug: Monitoring Uppsala, 2002.
  29. Lasagna, Clin Ther, 20, c72 (1998)
  30. Moynihan, N Engl J Med, 342, 1645 (2000)
  31. Decision conferencing; white paper. Catalyze Ltd: Winchester, UK, 2003. (Accessed August 29, 2005, at http://www.catalyze.co.uk)
Bibliographic reference Mussen, Filip ; Salek, Sam ; Walker, Stuart. A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines-part 1: The development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. In: Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety : an international journal, Vol. 16, p. S2-S15 (2007)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/37324