Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

Tjeerd Van Staa, Torbjörn Callréus, Stephen F Hobbiger, Billy Amzal (Collaborator), Deborah Ashby (Collaborator), Simon Ashworth (Collaborator), Alex Asiimwe (Collaborator), Johan Bring (Collaborator), Torbjorn Callreus (Collaborator), Edmond Kakit Chan (Collaborator), Christoph Dierig (Collaborator), Gerald Downey (Collaborator), David Gelb (Collaborator), Georgy Genov (Collaborator), Alesia Goginsky (Collaborator), Christine Hallgreen (Collaborator), Richard Hermann (Collaborator), Ian Hirsch (Collaborator), Steve Hobbiger (Collaborator), Kimberley Hockley (Collaborator)Diana Hughes (Collaborator), Juhaeri Juhaeri (Collaborator), Silvia Kuhls (Collaborator), Alfons Lieftucht (Collaborator), Davide Luciani (Collaborator), Marilyn Metcalf (Collaborator), Alain Micaleff (Collaborator), Shahrul Mt-Isa (Collaborator), Jeremiah Mwangi (Collaborator), Richard Nixon (Collaborator), Rebecca Noel (Collaborator), John Pears (Collaborator), Ruth Peters (Collaborator), Lawrence Phillips (Collaborator), George Quartey (Collaborator), Sinan B Sarac (Collaborator), Susan Shepherd (Collaborator), Isabelle Stoeckert (Collaborator), Elizabeth J Swain (Collaborator), Andrew Thomson (Collaborator), Laurence Titeux (Collaborator), Ioanna Tzoulaki (Collaborator), Rianne van den Ham (Collaborator), Tjeerd van Staa (Collaborator), Edward Waddingham (Collaborator), Nan Wang (Collaborator), Lesley Wise (Collaborator)

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
    Volume23
    Issue number7
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jul 2014

    Keywords

    • benefit-risk
    • decision-making
    • framework
    • medicines
    • pharmacoepidemiology
    • qualitative
    • quantitative
    • review

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this