Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36759415›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2023

A Retrospective Review of Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Advisory Committee Meetings in the Context of the FDA's Benefit-Risk Framework.

Jane Namangolwa Mutanga, Ujwani Nukala, Marisabel Rodriguez Messan, Osman N Yogurtcu, Quinn McCormick, Zuben E Sauna, Barbee I Whitaker, Richard A Forshee, Hong Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Jane Namangolwa Mutanga *Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Ujwani Nukala *Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Marisabel Rodriguez MessanOffice of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Osman N YogurtcuOffice of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Quinn McCormickOffice of Therapeutic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Zuben E SaunaOffice of Therapeutic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Barbee I WhitakerOffice of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Richard A ForsheeOffice of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Hong YangOffice of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. Hong.Yang@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0057-6566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The US FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is responsible for the regulation of biologically derived products. FDA has established Advisory Committees (AC) as vehicles to seek external expert advice on scientific and technical matters related to the development and evaluation of products regulated by the agency. We aimed to identify and evaluate common topics discussed in CBER AC meetings during the regulatory decision-making process for biological products and medical devices. We analyzed the content of 119 CBER-led AC meetings between 2009 and 2021 listed on the FDA AC webpage. We reviewed publicly available meeting materials such as briefing documents, summaries, and transcripts. Using a structured review codebook based on FDA benefit-risk guidance, we identified important considerations within the benefit-risk dimensions discussed at the AC meetings: therapeutic context, benefit, risk and risk management, and benefit-risk trade-off, where evidence and uncertainty are critical parts of the FDA benefit-risk framework. Based on a detailed review of 24 topics discussed in 23 selected AC meetings conducted between 2016 and 2021, the two most frequently discussed considerations were "Uncertainty about assessment of the safety profile" and "Uncertainty about assessment of the benefit based on clinical trial data" (16/24 times each) as defined in our codebook. Most of the reviewed meetings discussed Investigational New Drug or Biologics License Applications of products. This review could help sponsors better plan and design studies by contextualizing how the benefit-risk dimensions were embedded in the AC discussions and the considerations that went into the final AC recommendations.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesBiological ProductsRetrospective StudiesRisk ManagementUncertaintyUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBiological Productsadvisory committeesbenefit-riskbiological productsrisk managementUS Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID36759415
PMCPMC9911185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.