Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit‐Risk Decisions

Abstract

Benefit‐risk assessment is used in various phases along the drug lifecycle, such as marketing authorization and surveillance, health technology assessment (HTA), and clinical decisions, to understand whether, and for which patients, a drug has a favorable or more valuable profile with reference to one or more comparators. Such assessments are inherently preference‐based as several clinical and nonclinical outcomes of varying importance might act as evaluation criteria, and decision makers must establish acceptable trade‐offs between these outcomes. Different healthcare stakeholder perspectives, such as those from patients and healthcare professionals, are key for informing benefit‐risk trade‐offs. However, the degree to which such preferences inform the decision is often unclear as formal preference‐based evaluation frameworks are generally not used for regulatory decisions, and, if used, rarely communicated in HTA decisions. We argue that for better decisions, as well as for reasons of transparency, preferences in benefit‐risk decisions should more often be quantified and communicated explicitly.

Randomized Controlled Trials Versus Real World Evidence: Neither Magic Nor Myth

“…This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved criteria decision analysis would be particularly important for communicating regulatory (or HTA or payers) decisions about complex quality, non-clinical, and clinical data from multiple sources and with many uncertainties; such methods are available and have been explored in the drug regulatory and other contexts but there is more work to be done to establish their value and role 28 .…”

A WHO tool for risk‐based decision making on blood safety interventions

“…As judgements regarding weights are personal and there are no universal rules for making them, the weights are subjective in nature. There are various preference elicitation tools and techniques available for obtaining decision‐makers' preferences regarding the different outcomes (eg, analytic hierarchy process or discrete‐choice experiments) 14,15 . However, these require expertise and experience in expert elicitation as well as commitment and input from various stakeholders 16 .…”

Maintenance inhaler therapy preferences of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a discrete choice experiment

“…Increasingly, decision-makers are promoting formal benefit-risk assessments for this purpose. 3 Although qualitative research has provided some general insight into which treatment attributes are important, 4 5 quantitative methods, especially discrete choice experiments (DCEs), can provide information about the patients’ willingness to make trade-offs among the attributes. 6 In DCEs, respondents complete a series of questions in which they must choose between two treatments where there is a trade-off, for example, between efficacy and safety.…”