Department of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (S.K.).
Division of Cardiology and Nephrology, Office of Cardiology, Hematology, Endocrinology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD (N.S.).
Circulation. 2020 Nov 17;142(20):1974-1988. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048933. Epub 2020 Nov 16.
Balancing benefits and risks is a complex task that poses a major challenge, both to the approval of new medicines and devices by regulatory authorities and in therapeutic decision-making in practice. Several analysis methods and visualization tools have been developed to help evaluate and communicate whether the benefit-risk profile is favorable or unfavorable. In this White Paper, we describe approaches to benefit-risk assessment using qualitative approaches such as the Benefit Risk Action Team framework developed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Benefit-Risk Framework developed by the United States Food and Drug Administration; and quantitative approaches such as the numbers needed to treat for benefit and harm, the benefit-risk ratio, and Incremental Net Benefit. We give illustrative examples of benefit-risk evaluations using 4 treatment interventions including sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes; a direct antithrombin agent, dabigatran, for reducing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis; and antiplatelet agents vorapaxar and prasugrel for reducing cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Regular applications of structured benefit-risk assessment, whether qualitative, quantitative, or both, enabled by easy-to-understand graphical presentations that capture uncertainties around the benefit-risk metric, may aid shared decision-making and enhance transparency of those decisions.
权衡获益与风险是一项复杂的任务,这对监管机构批准新药和新器械以及在实践中的治疗决策都构成了重大挑战。已经开发了几种分析方法和可视化工具,以帮助评估和沟通获益-风险概况是否有利或不利。在本白皮书中,我们描述了使用定性方法(如美国制药研究和制造商协会开发的获益风险行动团队框架和美国食品和药物管理局开发的获益-风险框架)和定量方法(如获益和危害所需的治疗人数、获益-风险比和增量净获益)进行获益-风险评估的方法。我们使用包括钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白 2 抑制剂治疗 2 型糖尿病患者、直接抗凝血酶药物达比加群酯预防非瓣膜性心房颤动患者卒中及全身性栓塞、经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗有症状的严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者和抗血小板药物沃拉帕沙和普拉格雷预防高心血管风险患者心血管事件等 4 种治疗干预措施的获益-风险评估示例。通过易于理解的图形呈现,对获益-风险指标进行捕获不确定性的结构化获益-风险评估(无论是定性的、定量的还是两者结合)的定期应用,可能有助于共同决策并提高决策的透明度。