Search

Purpose The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit–risk assessment. Methods Eight case studies based on the benefit–risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit–risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. Results A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. Conclusions Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit–risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit–risk assessment from multiple perspectives. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background The PROTECT Benefit–Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit–risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. Methods A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit–risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. Results Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit–risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. Conclusion We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit–risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience–visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit–risk analysis information. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction Rotarix™, GSK’s live attenuated rotavirus vaccine, was introduced in Japan in 2011. A recent trend in reduction of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) due to this vaccine was described. However, an observed/expected analysis showed a temporal association with intussusception within 7 days post dose 1. Objective In this paper, we compare the benefit and risk of vaccination side-by-side in a benefit–risk analysis. Methods The number of vaccine-preventable RVGE-associated hospitalizations and deaths (benefit) and intussusception-associated hospitalizations and deaths (risk) following two doses of Rotarix™ in Japan was compared using simulations. Source data included peer-reviewed clinical and epidemiological publications, Japanese governmental statistics (Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications), and market survey data. Results For a birth cohort of 1 million vaccinated Japanese children followed for 5 years, the benefit–risk analysis suggested that the vaccine would prevent ~17,900 hospitalizations and ~6.3 deaths associated with RVGE. At the same time, vaccination would be associated with about ~50 intussusception hospitalizations and ~0.017 intussusception deaths. Therefore, for every intussusception hospitalization caused by vaccination and for one intussusception-associated death, 350 (95 % CI 69–2510) RVGE-associated hospitalizations and 366 (95 % CI 59–3271) RVGE-associated deaths are prevented, respectively, by vaccination. Conclusions The benefit–risk balance for Rotarix™ is favorable in Japan. From a public health perspective, the benefits in terms of prevented RVGE hospitalizations and deaths for the vaccinated population far exceed the estimated risks due to intussusception. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0376-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit-risk assessment.Eight case studies based on the benefit-risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit-risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies.A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination.Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit-risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit-risk assessment from multiple perspectives.

The PROTECT Benefit-Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit-risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods.A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit-risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual.Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit-risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated.We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit-risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience-visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit-risk analysis information.