Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar;55(2):415-425.
doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00230-3. Epub 2020 Oct 27.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: State of the Practice Within Industry

Affiliations

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: State of the Practice Within Industry

Meredith Y Smith et al. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Benefit-risk assessments for medicinal products and devices have advanced significantly over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to characterize the extent to which the life sciences industry is utilizing quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) methods.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of industry professionals working in drug and/or medical device benefit-risk assessments (n = 20). Questions focused on the use, timing, and impact of qBRA; implementation challenges; and future plans. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for thematic analysis.

Results: While most surveyed companies had applied qBRA, application was limited to a small number of assets-primarily to support internal decision-making and regulatory submissions. Positive impacts associated with use included improved team decision-making and communication. Multi-criteria decision analysis and discrete choice experiment were the most frequently utilized qBRA methods. A key challenge of qBRA use was the lack of clarity regarding its value proposition. Championing by senior company leadership and receptivity of regulators to such analyses were cited as important catalysts for successful adoption of qBRA. Investment in qBRA methods, via capability building and pilot studies, was also under way in some instances.

Conclusion: qBRA application within this sample of life sciences companies was widespread, but concentrated in a small fraction of assets. Its use was primarily for internal decision-making or regulatory submissions. While some companies had plans to build further capacity in this area, others were waiting for further regulatory guidance before doing so.

Keywords: Benefit–risk framework; Discrete choice experiment; Medical devices; Medicinal products; Multi-criteria decision analysis; Structured benefit–risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

RD and MYS are fulltime employees of pharmaceutical companies and are shareholders in their respective companies. The authors have no other conflicts of interest or financial support to declare in relation to this work.

References

    1. Amarasena IU, Chatterjee S, Walters JA, Wood-Baker R, Fong KM. Platinum versus non-platinum chemotherapy regimens for small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(8):CD006849 (Epub 2015/08/04). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, Ferguson J, Noel RA, Coplan PM, et al. Application of the BRAT Framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):217–224. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.280. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Noel R, Herman R, Levitan B, Watson DJ, Van Goor K. Application of the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework in pharmaceutical R&D: results from a pilot program. Drug Inf J. 2012;46(6):736–743. doi: 10.1177/0092861512458908. - DOI
    1. Revision of M4E guideline on enhancing the format and structure of benefit–risk information in ICH, Efficacy: M4E(R2) 2016 (updated 15 June 2016). https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/CTD/M4E_R2_Ef....
    1. McAuslane N, Leong J, Liberti L, Walker S. The benefit–risk assessment of medicines: experience of a Consortium of Medium-Sized Regulatory Authorities. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(5):635–644. doi: 10.1177/2168479017696260. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources