Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33111177›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021

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

Meredith Y Smith, Janine van Til, Rachael L DiSantostefano, A Brett Hauber, Kevin Marsh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Meredith Y SmithAlexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 121 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, MA, 02210, USA. meredith.smith@alexion.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4542-5099
Janine van TilUniversity of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5416-5893
Rachael L DiSantostefanoJanssen R&D, LLC., Titusville, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5324-6835
A Brett HauberRTI-Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3129-7268
Kevin MarshEvidera, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7912-9485

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationIndustryLeadershipPilot ProjectsRisk AssessmentBenefit–risk frameworkDiscrete choice experimentMedical devicesMedicinal productsMulti-criteria decision analysisStructured benefit–risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID33111177
PMCPMC7864811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.