Utilising benefit-risk assessments within clinical trials—a protocol for the BRAINS project
Utilising benefit-risk assessments within clinical trials—a protocol for the BRAINS project
Background :depending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships.
In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off between the benefits against the risks of a treatment.
Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods.
Methods: the project will consist of four work packages:
1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions,
2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations,
3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations, and
4. Production of a guidance document.
Discussion: the aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials however, the vision is that the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.
Benefit-risk, Health technology assessment, Randomised controlled trials
Totton, Nikki
76f8c5b2-5377-4906-89aa-37f16c7bbba0
Julious, Steven
260b667f-9b84-423e-a2a4-4b33eb505b47
Hughes, Dyfrig
fe34a80f-2647-4b7b-ab66-919bc9c13b85
Cook, Jonathan
eb29ac3d-490b-4845-8756-dd600d97468c
Biggs, Katie
f4835184-e318-43f9-8735-c988edc456d4
Coates, Lizzie
018ef49f-e2f0-4bc4-a582-1eb7b16b9fc0
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Hewitt, Catherine
1af137da-6cbb-4663-8092-2f3080cbb2fe
Day, Simon
ab5f7c9e-f5d4-42ad-91c4-4e022c2bb5bd
19 January 2021
Totton, Nikki
76f8c5b2-5377-4906-89aa-37f16c7bbba0
Julious, Steven
260b667f-9b84-423e-a2a4-4b33eb505b47
Hughes, Dyfrig
fe34a80f-2647-4b7b-ab66-919bc9c13b85
Cook, Jonathan
eb29ac3d-490b-4845-8756-dd600d97468c
Biggs, Katie
f4835184-e318-43f9-8735-c988edc456d4
Coates, Lizzie
018ef49f-e2f0-4bc4-a582-1eb7b16b9fc0
Cook, Andrew
ab9c7bb3-974a-4db9-b3c2-9942988005d5
Hewitt, Catherine
1af137da-6cbb-4663-8092-2f3080cbb2fe
Day, Simon
ab5f7c9e-f5d4-42ad-91c4-4e022c2bb5bd
Totton, Nikki, Julious, Steven, Hughes, Dyfrig, Cook, Jonathan, Biggs, Katie, Coates, Lizzie, Cook, Andrew, Hewitt, Catherine and Day, Simon
(2021)
Utilising benefit-risk assessments within clinical trials—a protocol for the BRAINS project.
Trials, 22 (68), [68].
(doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05022-0).
Abstract
Background :depending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships.
In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off between the benefits against the risks of a treatment.
Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods.
Methods: the project will consist of four work packages:
1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions,
2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations,
3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations, and
4. Production of a guidance document.
Discussion: the aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials however, the vision is that the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.
Text
Utilising benefit-risk
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 5 January 2021
Published date: 19 January 2021
Additional Information:
Funding Information:
This project is funded by the MRC as part of the Methodology State-of-the-Art Workshops series which are designed to achieve clarity around best practice in methodology and to provide guidance to the community []. Award number: MC_PC_18018. The funding body has had no role in the design, collection, analysis, interpretation and writing the manuscript on top of the commissioning brief they laid out for an interest in a guidance document around benefit-risk and for this to contain a workshop.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
Keywords:
Benefit-risk, Health technology assessment, Randomised controlled trials
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 446675
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/446675
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: 3deebcd2-c288-40f1-a0d4-6dcb6dd862da
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 17 Feb 2021 17:33
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:06
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Nikki Totton
Author:
Steven Julious
Author:
Dyfrig Hughes
Author:
Jonathan Cook
Author:
Katie Biggs
Author:
Lizzie Coates
Author:
Catherine Hewitt
Author:
Simon Day
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics