4.2 Article

A quantitative evaluation of the regulatory assessment of the benefits and risks of rofecoxib relative to naproxen: an application of the incremental net-benefit framework

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages 1172-1180

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1994

Keywords

benefit-risk analysis; rofecoxib; naproxen; arthritis

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To undertake a quantitative benefit-risk analysis of rofecoxib relative to naproxen using an incremental net-benefit (INB) analysis from the societal perspective, using the same data evaluated by the Health Canada and US FDA expert advisory panels. Methods We developed a discrete event simulation model to calculate the INB of rofecoxib relative to naproxen in arthritis patients over a 1-year time horizon. All outcomes were weighted using societal utilities for each health state which facilitated the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the outcome. Probability distributions were incorporated for each model parameter to facilitate a probabilistic analysis using second-order Monte Carlo simulation. Results In the base case analysis, the mean INB (SD) of rofecoxib relative to naproxen was 0.0002 (0.415) QALYs per patient over 12 months of treatment, or 0.2 QALYs per 1000 patients treated. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in a mean INB of 0.0022 QALYs (95% CI -0.0005, 0.0051). Overall, the INB associated with rofecoxib relative to naproxen was >= 0 in 94% of the iterations of the model. Conclusions This analysis illustrates the application of the incremental net-benefit framework to quantitative benefit-risk evaluation, and suggests that the potential benefits of rofecoxib outweigh the potential harms relative to naproxen over 1 year from the societal perspective under the assumptions of this model. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available