Benefit-risk Assessment of Cladribine Using Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for Patients With Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Key Opinion Leaders' Interviews to Inform the Future of Benefit-Risk Planning in the Medical Total Product Life Cycle of Global Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Organizations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Key opinion leader (KOL) interviews were conducted by the Benefit-Risk Assessment Planning (BRAP) Taskforce to seek expert opinion mainly from industry and regulatory bodies, about the current status and future direction of benefit-risk assessment (BRA) planning in the lifecycle of medical product development. The findings from these interviews are intended to help communication concerning planning for BRA between industry and regulators and shape future guidance.

METHODS

Key opinion leader interviews consisted of 5 questions related to BRA planning, which were administered to volunteers (mainly clinicians and statisticians) within a pool of experienced pharmaceutical and medical device professionals representing academia, industry, regulatory agencies and a patient group. The interviewees' responses to the 5 questions were summarized. To analyze the qualitative data, a Coding System was developed to label themes arising from the interviews. The key findings from the interviews were summarized into a Master Template. A quantitative analysis based on descriptive statistics was also conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 27 interviewees, there were 11 professionals from regulatory agencies, 11 from industry, 4 from academia and 1 from a patient advocacy group. Key findings based on the comments provided by 48% of the interviewees indicated the need of incorporating BRA into other (e.g., existing) processes with the importance of alignment between processes being stressed in the comments provided by 59% of the interviewees. Commencing BRA early in the product lifecycle was emphasized in comments provided by 44% of the interviewees. Among other needs identified were an appropriate contextualization of benefits and risks (based on comments provided by 41% of interviewees) through adoption of an integrated approach with structured support by regulatory agencies and a need for understanding the audience with better communication of benefit-risk (BR) among all stakeholders (based on comments provided by 44% of the interviewees). Almost all comments provided by interviewees (96%) highlighted the importance of utilizing patient experience/preference to guide new product development and BRA. Comments provided by 74% of the interviewees expressed the need to understand patient tolerance for risk and trade-offs, with a majority (78%) of interviewees highlighting how to gather information, and 59% stressing the need for the selection and development of appropriate methodologies as important considerations for enhancing the quality and relevance of the data collected from patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewees indicated that BRA should commence early in the medical product development and inform decision-making throughout the product lifecycle. Better planning and integration of BRA into existing processes within industry would be valuable. The importance of incorporating the patient voice into BRA and medical product development was emphasized. Other key findings from the KOL interviews included a need for improved communication of BR information, and establishment of methodologies for performing BRA and soliciting patient input.

A novel MCGDM technique based on correlation coefficients under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment and its application in clinical comprehensive evaluation of orphan drugs

Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy sets (PHFSs) are superior to hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs) in avoiding the problem of preference information loss among decision makers (DMs). Owing to this benefit, PHFSs have been extensively investigated. In probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environments, the correlation coefficients have become a focal point of research. As research progresses, we discovered that there are still a few unresolved issues concerning the correlation coefficients of PHFSs. To overcome the limitations of existing correlation coefficients for PHFSs, we propose new correlation coefficients in this study. In addition, we present a multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) method under unknown weights based on the newly proposed correlation coefficients. In addition, considering the limitations of DMs' propensity to use language variables for expression in the evaluation process, we propose a method for transforming the evaluation information of the DMs' linguistic variables into probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information in the newly proposed MCGDM method. To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed correlation coefficients and MCGDM method, we applied them to a comprehensive clinical evaluation of orphan drugs. Finally, the reliability, feasibility and efficacy of the newly proposed correlation coefficients and MCGDM method were validated.

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review

Objectives: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing attention in supporting drug risk-benefit assessment, pricing and reimbursement, as well as optimization of clinical interventions. The objective of this study was to systematically collect and categorize evaluation criteria and techniques of weighting and scoring of MCDA for drug value assessment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases to identify articles utilizing the MCDA frameworks for the evaluation of drug value. Evaluation criteria mentioned in the included studies were extracted and assigned to 5 dimensions including clinical, economic, innovative, societal and humanistic value. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the identified drug value evaluation criteria, as well as the weighting and scoring techniques employed. The more a criterion or technique were mentioned in articles, the more important we consider it. Results: Out of the 82 articles included, 111 unique criteria were identified to evaluate the value of drug. Among the 56 unique criteria (448 times) used to measure clinical value, the most frequently mentioned were "comparative safety/tolerability" (58 times), "comparative effectiveness/efficacy" (56 times), "comparative patient-perceived health/patient reported outcomes" (37 times), "disease severity" (34 times), and "unmet needs" (25 times). Regarding economic value measurement, out of the 20 unique criteria (124 times), the most frequently utilized criteria were "cost of intervention" (17 times), "comparative other medical costs" (16 times), and "comparative non-medical costs" (18 times). Out of the 10 criteria (18 times) for assessing innovative value, "a novel pharmacological mechanism" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (5 times). Among the 22 criteria (73 times) used to measure societal value, "system capacity and appropriate use of intervention" was the most frequently cited criterion (14 times). Out of the 3 criteria (15 times) utilized to measure humanistic value, "political/historical/cultural context" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (9 times). Furthermore, 11 scoring and 11 weighting techniques were found from various MCDA frameworks. "Swing weighting" and "a direct rating scale" were the most frequently used techniques in included articles. Conclusion: This study comprehensively presented the current evaluation dimensions, criteria, and techniques for scoring and weighting in drug-oriented MCDA articles. By highlighting the frequently cited evaluation criteria and techniques for scoring and weighting, this analysis will provide a foundation to reasonably select appropriate evaluation criteria and technique in constructing the MCDA framework that aligns with research objectives.

Treatment Preference for Alzheimer's Disease: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis with Caregivers, Neurologists, and Payors

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder associated with a high burden of illness. New therapies under development include agents that target amyloid-beta (Aβ), a key component in AD pathogenesis. Understanding the decision-making process for new AD drugs would help determine if such therapies should be adopted by society. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to three key stakeholder groups to assess treatment alternatives for AD based on a multitude of decision trade-offs covering main components of care.

METHODS

AD caregivers (n = 117), neurologists (n = 90), and payors (n = 90) from the USA received an online survey. The decision problem was broken down into four decision criterion and 12 subcriteria for two treatment scenarios: an Aβ-targeted therapy vs. the standard of care (SOC). Respondents were asked to indicate how much they preferred one option over another on a scale from 1 (equal preference) to 9 (high preference) based on each criterion and subcriterion. The decision criteria and subcriteria were weighted and presented as partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference for that decision-making component.

RESULTS

Caregivers and payors applied the highest value to need for intervention (mean pUS = 0.303 and 0.259) and clinical outcomes (mean pUS = 0.286 and 0.377). In contrast, neurologists placed the highest value on clinical outcomes and types of benefits (mean pUS = 0.436 and 0.248). When decision subcriteria were examined, efficacy (mean pUS = 0.115, 0.219, and 0.166) and the type of patient benefits (mean pUS = 0.135, 0.178, and 0.126) were among the most valued by caregivers, neurologists, and payors.

CONCLUSION

All groups placed the highest value on drug efficacy and types of benefit derived by patients. In contrast, cost implications were among the least important aspects in their decision-making.

Available Methods for Benefit-risk Assessment: Lessons for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Drugs

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Medical treatment for inflammatory bowel disease has advanced significantly over the two past decades. The advent of biologics and small molecules has revolutionised outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Knowledge of drug pharmacology, indications, and adverse events is essential to ensure the best clinical care while minimising toxicity. Our aim was to review the literature on current methods of benefit-risk assessment, and consider their practical applicability to inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to investigate studies documenting benefit-risk assessment.

RESULTS

Several structured frameworks and quantitative methodologies have been developed to evaluate benefit-risk profiles of drugs in a more comprehensive and consistent framework. Quantitative methods integrate benefit and risk outcome measures or incorporate preference weights for benefit and risk criteria into the evaluation. Incorporation of preference weights from patients is an essential aspect of quantitative benefit-risk assessment. Benefit-risk assessment is still evolving in inflammatory bowel disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks and benefits of each medical therapy must be discussed with the patient and a shared decision-making process is recommended. Future initiatives should be developed to perform a benefit-risk assessment considering the characteristics of inflammatory bowel disease drugs.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

In the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, four major vaccines were approved despite limited efficacy and safety data through short regulatory review periods. Thus, it is necessary to assess the benefit-risk (BR) profiles of the COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a quantitative BR assessment for four COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-based: mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2; viral vector-based: Ad26.COV.2 and ChAdOx1-S) using multi-criteria decision analysis. Three benefit criteria and two risk criteria were considered: preventing COVID-19 infection for (1) adults aged ≥18 years; (2) seniors aged 60 years or older; and (3) severe COVID-19, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Data were retrieved from clinical trials, observational studies, and county-specific AE monitoring reports. Based on the collected data, vaccines were scored for each criterion. 22 professionals weighted each criterion. The overall BR score was calculated using scores and weights. mRNA-1273 was the most preferred vaccine in pre-authorization and BNT162b2 in post-authorization. We found that the mRNA vaccine had a good balance between the benefits and risks. Using this BR assessment, the benefit-risk profile of COVID-19 vaccines can be updated with cumulated data. It will contribute to building evidence for decision making by policy makers and health professionals.

Patient and neurologist preferences in the UK for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatments: findings from a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare patient and neurologist preferences for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treatments with respect to benefits and risks associated with common and novel disease-modifying therapies, including brain volume loss (BVL).

METHODS

Patients with non-highly-active RRMS and neurologists in the United Kingdom completed an online cross-sectional survey. Patients completed one discrete choice experiment (DCE) exercise and providers completed two, one focusing on treatment for non-highly-active RRMS and another focused on highly active RRMS. Respondents chose between two treatment profiles that varied on seven attributes identified in qualitative research: 2 year disability progression; 1 year relapse rate; rate of BVL; and risks of gastrointestinal symptoms, flu-like symptoms, infection and life-threatening event. Bayesian modeling was used to estimate attribute-level weighted preferences.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 144) prioritized slowing the rate of BVL, followed by reducing risk of infection, rate of 2 year disability progression and 1 year relapse rate. For non-highly-active patients, neurologists (n = 101) prioritized slowing the rate of BVL, followed by reducing 2 year disability progression, risk of infection and 1 year relapse rate. For highly active patients, neurologists prioritized lowering the 1 year relapse rate, followed by slowing the rate of BVL and 2 year disability progression. In all three DCEs, rate of BVL was approximately twice as important as reducing the risks of flu-like symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms and life-threatening event.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights similarities in treatment preferences for non-highly-active RRMS among patients and neurologists and differences in neurologists' preferences for treating non-highly-active vs. highly active RRMS. This research identifies BVL as a treatment outcome that should be discussed when physicians engage in shared decision-making with patients.

Oral pulsed therapy of relapsing multiple sclerosis with cladribine tablets - expert opinion on issues in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Oral cladribine is the first oral pulsed therapy licensed for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Three years after the introduction into the European market, we evaluated practical aspects in the use of cladribine tablets, incorporating the experience gained in routine clinical practice and real-world studies.

METHODS

Based on a structured review process, a panel of nine neurologists experienced in MS therapy discussed salient statements regarding the use of cladribine tables. For each statement the level of evidence was determined according to the levels of evidence recommended by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford. The strength of each expert statement was then evaluated by means of a linear scale from 1 (very strong rejection) to 9 (very strong approval). Votes were collected by a formalized blinded process. Consent was considered to be reached if at least 75% of the experts agreed on a particular statement (i.e. voted for 7-9 points on the linear scale).

RESULTS

. Statements include efficacy in early RMS, risk of side effects and infections, vaccination, pregnancy, and monitoring requirements.

CONCLUSION

The consented recommendations summarize the practical experience inthe use of cladribine tablets in a real-world setting. These may provide guidance for unanswered questions arising with the introduction of new treatments such as cladribine tablets.

A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Comparing Pharmacotherapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain, Including Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medical Products

Background:

Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit–safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults.

Methods:

A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance.

Findings:

Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit–safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs.

Interpretation:

The benefit–safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive capture of clinical experience with cannabinoids is warranted. These results demonstrate once again the complexity and multimodal mechanisms underlying the clinical experience and impact of chronic pain.

Patient and Neurologist Preferences in the United States for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatments: Findings from a Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with central nervous system dysfunction and accelerated brain volume loss (BVL). There exists a paucity of research examining the importance of BVL to patients and neurologists and exploring whether such preferences may differ between these two groups. This study sought to evaluate the preferences of patients and neurologists for RRMS treatments by considering benefits and risks associated with novel and common disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

US patients diagnosed with non-highly active RRMS and US-based neurologists completed an online cross-sectional survey. A discrete choice experiment was used to assess patient and neurologist treatment preferences, with neurologists considering preferences for patients with non-highly active RRMS. Respondents chose between two treatment profiles with seven attributes identified in qualitative research: 2-year disability progression; 1-year relapse rate; rate of BVL; and risks of gastrointestinal symptoms, flu-like symptoms, infection, and life-threatening events. Attribute-level weighted preferences were estimated using a hierarchical Bayesian model.

RESULTS

Analyses included 150 patients with non-highly active RRMS (mean age: 54 years) and 150 neurologists (65% in private practice). Among patients, the most important treatment attribute was reducing the rate of BVL, followed by reducing the risk of infection and risk of flu-like symptoms. In contrast, the most important treatment attribute among neurologists was reducing the risk of a life-threatening event, followed by slowing the rate of 2-year disability progression and risk of infection.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight differences in treatment preferences between US patients and neurologists for non-highly active RRMS. The importance placed by patients on slowing the rate of BVL makes this a key topic that should be covered in the shared decision-making process.

Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature

A favorable benefit–risk profile remains an essential requirement for marketing authorization of medicinal drugs and devices. Furthermore, prior subjective, implicit and inconsistent ad hoc benefit–risk assessment methods have rightly evolved towards more systematic, explicit or “structured” approaches. Contemporary structured benefit–risk evaluation aims at providing an objective assessment of the benefit–risk profile of medicinal products and a higher transparency for decision making purposes. The use of a descriptive framework should be the preferred starting point for a structured benefit–risk assessment. In support of more precise assessments, quantitative and semi-quantitative methodologies have been developed and utilized to complement descriptive or qualitative frameworks in order to facilitate the structured evaluation of the benefit–risk profile of medicinal products. In addition, quantitative structured benefit–risk analysis allows integration of patient preference data. Collecting patient perspectives throughout the medical product development process has become increasingly important and key to the regulatory decision-making process. Both industry and regulatory authorities increasingly rely on descriptive structured benefit–risk evaluation and frameworks in drug, vaccine and device evaluation and comparison. Although varied qualitative methods are more commonplace, quantitative approaches have recently been emphasized. However, it is unclear how frequently these quantitative frameworks have been used by pharmaceutical companies to support submission dossiers for drug approvals or to respond to the health authorities’ requests. The objective of this study has been to identify and review, for the first time, currently available, published, structured, quantitative benefit–risk evaluations which may have informed health care professionals and/or payor as well as contributed to decision making purposes in the regulatory setting for drug, vaccine and/or device approval.

Medical cannabis in the UK: From principle to practice

BACKGROUND

In the UK, medical cannabis was approved in November 2018, leading many patients to believe that the medicine would now be available on the NHS. Yet, to date, there have been only 12 NHS prescriptions and less than 60 prescriptions in total. In marked contrast, a recent patient survey by the Centre for Medical Cannabis (Couch, 2020) found 1.4 m people are using illicit cannabis for medical problems.

AIMS

Such a mismatch between demand and supply is rare in medicine. This article outlines some of the current controversies about medical cannabis that underpin this disparity, beginning by contrasting current medical evidence from research studies with patient-reported outcomes.

OUTCOMES

Although definite scientific evidence is scarce for most conditions, there is significant patient demand for access to medical cannabis. This disparity poses a challenge for prescribers, and there are many concerns of physicians when deciding if, and how, to prescribe medical cannabis which still need to be addressed. Potential solutions are outlined as to how the medical profession and regulators could respond to the strong demand from patients and families for access to medical cannabis to treat chronic illnesses when there is often a limited scientific evidence base on whether and how to use it in many of these conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to maximise both clinical research and patient benefit, in a safe, cautious and ethical manner, so that those patients for whom cannabis is shown to be effective can access it. We hope our discussion and outlines for future progress offer a contribution to this process.

Advancing structured decision-making in drug regulation at the FDA and EMA

The recent benefit-risk framework (BRF) developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is intended to improve the clarity and consistency in communicating the reasoning behind the FDA's decisions, acting as an important advancement in US drug regulation. In the PDUFA VI implementation plan, the FDA states that it will continue to explore more structured or quantitative decision analysis approaches; however, it restricts their use within the current BRF that is purely qualitative. By contrast, European regulators and researchers have been long exploring the use of quantitative decision analysis approaches for evaluating drug benefit-risk balance. In this paper, we show how quantitative modelling, backed by decision theory, could complement and extend the FDA's BRF to better support the appraisal of evidence and improve decision outcomes. After providing relevant scientific definitions for benefit-risk assessment and describing the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) frameworks, we explain the components of and differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches. We present lessons learned from the EMA experience with the use of quantitative modelling and we provide evidence of its benefits, illustrated by a real case study that helped to resolve differences of judgements among EMA regulators.

Immune Reconstitution Therapy or Continuous Immunosuppression for the Management of Active Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Patients? A Narrative Review

The majority of disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) available for the management of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RMS) depend on continuous drug intake for maintained efficacy, with escalation to a more active drug when an unacceptable level of disease activity returns. Among continuously applied regimens, interferons and glatiramer acetate act as immunomodulators, while dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, natalizumab and teriflunomide are associated with continuous immunosuppression. By contrast, immune reconstitution therapy (IRT) provides efficacy that outlasts a short course of treatment. Autologous hemopoietic stem cell transplantation is perhaps the classic example of IRT, but this invasive and intensive therapy has challenging side-effects. A short treatment course of a pharmacologic agent hypothesized to act as an IRT, such as Cladribine Tablets 3.5 mg/kg or alemtuzumab, can provide long-term suppression of MS disease activity, without need for continuous treatment (the anti-CD20 mechanism of ocrelizumab has the potential to act as an IRT, but is administered continuously, at 6-monthly intervals). Cladribine Tablets 3.5 mg/kg shows some selectivity in targeting adaptive immunity with a lesser effect on innate immunity. The introduction of IRT-like disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) challenges the traditional maintenance/escalation mode of treatment and raises new questions about how disease activity is measured. In this review, we consider a modern classification of DMDs for MS and its implications for the care of patients in the IRT era.

Modeling the impact of patient treatment preference on health outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Aims: Model how moving from current disease-modifying drug (DMD) prescribing patterns for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) observed in the United Kingdom (UK) to prescribing patterns based on patient preferences would impact health outcomes over time.Materials and methods: A cohort-based Markov model was used to measure the effect of DMDs on long-term health outcomes for individuals with RRMS. Data from a discrete choice experiment were used to estimate the market shares of DMDs based on patient preferences (i.e. preference shares). These preference shares and real-world UK market shares were used to calculate the effect of prescribing behavior on relapses, disability progression, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental benefit of patient-centered prescribing over current practices for the UK RRMS population was then estimated; scenario and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.Results: Compared to current prescribing practices, when UK patients with RRMS were treated following patient preferences, health outcomes were improved. This population was expected to experience 501,690 relapses and gain 1,003,263 discounted QALYs over 50 years under patient-centered prescribing practices compared to 538,417 relapses and 958,792 discounted QALYs under current practices (-6.8% and +4.6%, respectively). Additionally, less disability progression was observed when prescribed treatment was based on patient preferences. In a scenario analysis where only oral treatments were considered, the results were similar, although the magnitude of benefit was smaller. Number of relapses was most sensitive to how the annualized relapse rate was modeled; disability progression was most sensitive to mortality rate assumptions.Limitations: Treatment efficacy estimates applied to various models in this study were based on data derived from clinical trials, rather than real-world data; the impact of patient-centered prescribing on treatment adherence and/or switching was not modeled.Conclusions: The population of UK RRMS patients may experience overall health gains if patient preferences are better incorporated into prescribing practices.