ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021
Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: State of the Practice Within Industry.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Conducting Quantitative Patient-Centered Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study in Ph + ALL with Immature Efficacy Data.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.The patient · 2025Review
- Article
- Use of Drug Sensitisers to Improve Therapeutic Index in Cancer.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- A Survey to Assess the Current Status of Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment in the Global Drug and Medical Device Industry.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2024Article
- Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Operating Model for Investigational Medicinal Products in the Pharmaceutical Industry.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Review
- A simulated maximum likelihood procedure for analyzing imprecise trade-off thresholds between the benefits and harms of medicines.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Benefit-Risk Analysis by National Regulatory Authorities.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenefit-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.
methodsSemi-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.
resultsWhile 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.
conclusionqBRA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.