z-logo
Premium
Advancing structured decision‐making in drug regulation at the FDA and EMA
Author(s) -
Angelis Aris,
Phillips Lawrence D.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
british journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.216
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1365-2125
pISSN - 0306-5251
DOI - 10.1111/bcp.14425
Subject(s) - clarity , agency (philosophy) , consistency (knowledge bases) , risk analysis (engineering) , regulatory science , management science , complement (music) , food and drug administration , decision analysis , quantitative analysis (chemistry) , risk assessment , computer science , medicine , economics , sociology , artificial intelligence , social science , biochemistry , chemistry , computer security , mathematical economics , pathology , chromatography , complementation , gene , phenotype
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.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here