Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals...

49
22/04/57 1 Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study CEB-rama.org Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Definition of Risk Study CC-EBM Most often used to express the probability that a particular outcome will occur following a particular exposure is “ RISK STUDY”

Transcript of Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals...

Page 1: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

1

Clinical Appraisal onRisk & Harm Study

CEB-rama.org

Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics

Definition of Risk Study

CC-EBM

Most often used to express the probability thata particular outcome will occur following a particular exposure is “ RISK STUDY”

Page 2: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

2

Principles

• Are the results valid ? ( Need to assessment !!)

• What are the results ?• Application or How can I apply

this result to our patient care ?

CEB-rama.org

Principles • Are the results valid ? ( Need to assessment !!)

• Cohort study– Similar prognosis factors ?– Method to detect outcome similar ?– Sufficient of follow up ?

• Case-control study– Case vs. Control have circumstances that would lead to exposure– Same circumstances and methods to determine the exposure

• Cross-sectional study• What are the results ?

• Strong association between exposure and outcome• How precise was the estimate of risk

• Application ?• Study patients similar to patients in my practices• Long sufficient follow up ?• Similar exposure with my patients• What is magnitude of risk ?• Are there any benefits that are know to be associated with exposure?

CEB-rama.org

Page 3: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

3

Example• Does Soy milk increase the risk of

developing peanut allergy in children ?

CEB-rama.org

Validity• Similar prognosis

– RCT : Limitation or unethical

– Observational Studies• Cohort study

– Similar prognosis factors ?– Method to detect outcome similar ?– Sufficient of follow up ?

• Case-control study– Case vs. Control have circumstances that would lead to exposure– Same circumstances and methods to determine the exposure

• Adjusted analysis

CEB-rama.org

Page 4: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

4

Validity

• Ascertainment of exposure– How to measure the exposure

– Recall bias ?

CEB-rama.org

Validity• Outcome measurement

– The same way

no Accident

no Accident

CEB-rama.org

Page 5: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

5

Validity– Follow Up

• Drop-out ?

• Follow up complete ?

no Accident

no Accident

CEB-rama.org

• Similar prognosis

• Exposure ascertainment

• Outcome measurement

• Complete FU

What is the range of validity ? (Scoring in your mind)

0 50 100

0 100%

CEB-rama.org

Page 6: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

6

Result

• Magnitude of association

Exposure Outcome

Relative riskOdds ratio

CEB-rama.org

Results

• How precise of the association

Relative riskOdds ratio

1 1 95% CI

P-value 0.001 0.09 0.103

3

CEB-rama.org

Page 7: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

7

Application

• Our patients = Patients in this review

• Is FU long enough?

• Magnitude of risk: BIG??? vs. SMALL

• Should I stop the exposure?

CEB-rama.org

Number needed to harm

• NNH:number of patients you need to treat to harm one of them for any odds ratio (OR)

• your patient’s expected event rate for this adverse event if they were not exposed to this treatment (PEER):

• NNH = PEER (OR-1)+1PEER (OR-1) x (1-PEER)

CEB-rama.org

Page 8: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

8

NNH table

CEB-rama.org

Should I stop the exposure?

• NNH = 1

• NNH = 50

• NNH = 100

• NNH = 500

ItchingSkin infection

LimpingPain CVADeath

CEB-rama.org

Page 9: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

9

Application

• Patients’ preference• Alternative treatment?

CEB-rama.org

Example of ClinicalAppraisal of Risk Study

CEB-rama.org

Page 10: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

10

Risk Drugs ( Risk vs Harm)• Glucosamine in OA

• High efficacy of ATB to treatment tonsillitis (Zithromax, Cephalosporin vs. S.pyrogenis)

• ASA/Anticoagulant in CVH

• Bromhexine in Asthma

• Nifedipine vs. Hypertensive crisis

• Cimetidine Rx PU compared with Ranitidine(More drug interaction metformin, Chloroquin)

• Clopidogrel vs low dose ASA rxnoncardioembolic TIA หรือ stroke

CEB-rama.org

Lessons & Learnt form the withdrawal of Rofecoxib

CEB-rama.org

Page 11: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

11

Question• 65 years old• Female• OA knee• Received Vioxx

(Rofecoxib) for 2 years• Worry about CVS side-

effect

Would you change analgesic drug?CEB-rama.org

•Forming answerable clinical questions

•Searching for the best evidence answer

•Critical appraisal

3 skills for handling evidence:

CEB-rama.org

Page 12: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

12

Categories of Clinical Questions

CEB-rama.org

4 parts of clinical question

• Patient or Problem P

• Intervention or exposure I

• Comparison C

• Outcome O

CEB-rama.org

Page 13: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

13

Converting a clinical problem into a clinical question1. Patient

Among OA female patients…

2. InterventionWould treating with Vioxx

3. Comparison interventioncompared with other NSAIDs…

4. Outcome : increased CV events

CEB-rama.org

What EBM?

“Expertise in integrating

1. Best research evidence

2. Clinical Circumstance

3. Patient values

in clinical decisions”

Haynes, Devereaux, & Guyatt, 2002CEB-rama.org

Page 14: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

14

CC-EBMMonitor the changeMonitor change

CC-EBM

Page 15: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

15

Critical Appraisal of the Critical Appraisal of the EvidenceEvidence

Cardiovascular events associated with Rofecoxib in a colorectal

adenoma chemoprevention trial

CEB-rama.org

CEB-rama.org

Page 16: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

16

HarmUsers’ Guides for an article about harm

CEB-rama.org

Are the results valid?Are the results valid?

• Did experimental and control groups begin the study with a similar prognosis?

• Did the investigators demonstrate similarity in all known determinants of outcome; did they adjust for differences in the analysis?

Yes (Table 1)

CEB-rama.org

Page 17: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

17

CEB-rama.org

Are the results valid?

• Were exposed patients equally likely to be identified in the two groups?

• Did experimental and control groups retain a similar prognosis after the study started?

Yes (RCT)

CEB-rama.org

Page 18: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

18

CEB-rama.org

Are the results valid?

• Were the outcomes measured in the same way in the groups being compared?

Yes

CEB-rama.org

Page 19: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

19

CEB-rama.org

Are the results valid?

• Was follow-up sufficiently complete?– Loss to follow-up ?

Yes (complete 3 years of treatment)

CEB-rama.org

Page 20: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

20

What is the range of validity ?(in your mind)

0 50 100

CEB-rama.org

What is the range of validity ? (in your mind)

0 50 100

CEB-rama.org

Page 21: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

21

What are the results?

• How strong in the association between exposure and outcome? – Hazard Ratio– Relative risk

• How precise is the estimated of the risk?– Narrow 95% confidence interval

CEB-rama.org

CEB-rama.org

Page 22: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

22

CEB-rama.org

How can I apply the results to patient care?

• Were the study patients similar to the patient under consideration in my practice?

Racial difference, colorectal adenoma

• Was the duration of follow-up adequate?Yes

• What was the magnitude of the risk? Hazard ratio 2.8, Relative risk 1.9-4.5

• Should I attempt to stop the exposure?Yes

CEB-rama.org

Page 23: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

23

Rofecoxib story

CEB-rama.org

Biosynthesis of eicosanoids

CEB-rama.org

Page 24: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

24

CC-EBMCEB-rama.org

Rofecoxib development

• 1987 Two enzymes-cyclooxygenaseCOX-1 and COX-2

• 1999 First two drugs were approved by FDA (Food and Drug Administration)

celebrex: CLASSrofecoxib: VIGOR

• 2004 Merck withdrew rofecoxibAPPOVe trial

CEB-rama.org

Page 25: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

25

Conceptual work

Preclinical toxicology testing on animals

Investigational new drug application

FDA acceptance of IND

Drug development

CEB-rama.org

FDA acceptance of IND

Phase I Include < 100 people,

to establish safety

Clinical trials

Phase II Include 100-1000 people,

to establish efficacy

Phase III Include >1000 people, to confirm short and

long term efficacy

CEB-rama.org

Page 26: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

26

Phase III Include >1000 people, to confirm short and

long term efficacy

New drug application

FDA approval for marketing

Post marketing surveillance

CEB-rama.org

Clinical trial

Phase I Clinical pharmacology /

toxicology, safetysafetysafetysafety, dose fining

Phase II Initial clinical investigation for

treatment effect, pilot studypilot studypilot studypilot study

Phase III Full-scale evaluation of treatment

effect (efficacyefficacyefficacyefficacy)

Phase IV Post-market surveillance

(effectivenesseffectivenesseffectivenesseffectiveness)

CEB-rama.org

Page 27: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

27

Efficacy study•Efficacy trial : Does receiving treatment

work under ideal conditions?

•Efficacy is established by restricting patients in a study to those who will cooperate fully with medical advice.

CEB-rama.org

Effectiveness study•Effectiveness trial: Does offering

treatment help under ordinary circumstances?

•The extent to which a specific intervention, procedure, regimen, or service, when deployed in the field.

CEB-rama.org

Page 28: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

28

Efficiency

•The effects or end results achieved in relation to the effort expended in terms of money, resources and time

•The measure of the economy (or cost in resources) with which a procedure of known efficacy and effectiveness is carried out

CEB-rama.org

Preclinical development

1,000 chemicals

Phase I

100 chemicals

Phase II

10 drugs

Phase III

1 drugs

Duration (years)

2.5

1.5

2.5

3

Chance of reaching the market (%)

IV80

50

20

10

5

Market approval

CEB-rama.org

Page 29: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

29

Evaluation of drug safetyType of Adverse Drug Reaction

Type AExpected/known mechanism, often dose-relatedEg. bradycardia from beta-blocker

CEB-rama.org

Evaluation of drug safetyType of Adverse Drug Reaction

Type AExpected/known mechanism, often dose-relatedEg. bradycardia from beta-blocker

Type BUnexpected/ unclear mechanism, unclear causationEg. allergic reactions

CEB-rama.org

Page 30: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

30

Evaluation of drug safetyType of Adverse Drug Reaction

Type AExpected/known mechanism, often dose-relatedEg. bradycardia from beta-blocker

Type BUnexpected/ unclear mechanism, unclear causationEg. allergic reactions

Type CUnexpected/relation detected statisticallyEg. coronary deaths from rofecoxib

CEB-rama.org

Hierarchy of Evidence

• Systematic reviews and meta-analysis• Randomized controlled trial• Cohort study• Case-control study• Cross-sectional study• Case series• Case report

CEB-rama.org

Page 31: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

31

Experimental

Observational

RCTQuasi-experimental

Descriptive

Analytic

Case seriesCross-sectional

Cross-sectionalCohortCase-control

Assign exposure

Natural exposureNo comparison gr.

Comparison gr.

CEB-rama.org

CC-EBM

Randomized controlled trials

Populationof patientsWith the Condition Sample

Improved

Not improved

Improved

Not improved

Outcomes

Experimental

Comparison

Random sampling

R

Page 32: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

32

Loopholes in ADR evaluation

Phase ADR type Hierarchy of usefulness

Pre-clinic A Animal studies

Phase I A, B Cohort (before-after)

CS

Phase II A, B RCT (Cohort>CC>CS)

Phase III A, B, C RCT/Meta (Cohort>CC>CS)

Phase IV A, B, C CS>Cohort>CC>RCT/Meta

CC=case-control, CS=case seriesCEB-rama.org

CC-EBM

Sample size considerationADR incidence Background incidence n

1/100 0

1/10,000

1/1,000

1/100

360

520

730

2,000

1/1,000 0

1/10,000

1/1,000

1/100

3,600

7,300

20,300

136,400

1/5,000 0

1/10,000

1/1,000

1/100

18,200

67,400

363,000

3,255,000

Page 33: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

33

Rofecoxib development

• 1987 Two enzymes-cyclooxygenaseCOX-1 and COX-2

• 1999 First two drugs were approved by FDA (Food and Drug Administration)

celebrex: CLASSrofecoxib: VIGOR

• 2004 Merck withdrew rofecoxibAPPOVe trial

CEB-rama.org

September 30, 2004

Dr Peter Kim, president of Merck Research Laboratories, said that the company was considering withdraw rofecoxib (Vioxx) from the market.

CEB-rama.org

Page 34: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

34

CC-EBM

CC-EBM

Page 35: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

35

VIGOR studyVioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research

• 8076 patients (over 40 yrs) with RA• Rofecoxib vs. Naproxen • Median F/U: 9 months• Exclude pts with stroke in the last 2

years or MI/CABG in the last year or those who required ASA

CEB-rama.org

Critical appraisal

• Short-term trial• The exclusion of high-risk patients• Methodologic inattention to CVS events

Minimized the possibility of evidence of CVS harm

CEB-rama.org

Page 36: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

36

ResultsVIGOR study

• Primary endpoint: complicated GI endpoints (perforation, obstruction, or severe bleeding)0.6/100 pt-yr (ROf) vs. 1.4/100 pt-yr (Nap)

• MI0.53/100 pt-yr (ROf) vs. 0.13/100 pt-yr (Nap)

CEB-rama.org

CC-EBM

VIGOR studyNEJM 2000;343:1520-28

Page 37: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

37

Treatment effect

• Attributable risk reduction (ARR)Ic-IRx

• Number needed to treat (NNT)1/ARR

• Number needed to harm (NNH)1/IRx- Ic

CEB-rama.org

The power of EBM

• NNT = 1/0.014-0.006 = 125• NNH = 1/0.053-0.0013 = 250

CEB-rama.org

Page 38: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

38

The power of EBM

• NNT = 1/0.014-0.006 = 125• NNH = 1/0.053-0.0013 = 250

For every 250 pts treated , 2 severe GI events are avoided but 1 MI is caused

CEB-rama.org

The power of EBM

• Lacked of placebo group• An increased cardiovascular risk with

rofecoxib?• A protective effect of naproxen?

CEB-rama.org

Page 39: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

39

Why?

• 11 of the 13 principal authors have had financial associations with Merck.

CEB-rama.org

What they do next?

• Should be the study that address primary question of cardiovascular toxicity

CEB-rama.org

Page 40: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

40

What they do next?

• Should be the study that address primary question of cardiovascular toxicity

• Instead, the efficacy trials designed to investigate the prevention of recurrent colonic polyps was launched, with monitoring of CVS events of safety

CEB-rama.org

Observational study

• What if, a large case-control study conducted to test hypothesis whether or not the increase was from rofecoxib rather than waiting the results of RCT not designed to find the adverse effect.

• Sooner• Less cost• Not need large sample as in RCT

CEB-rama.org

Page 41: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

41

Can we trust meta-analysis?

CEB-rama.org

Fallacy perpetuatedMeta-analysis

Konstam MA et al. Circ 2001;104:2280CEB-rama.org

Page 42: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

42

Fallacy perpetuatedMeta-analysis

• Conclusions— This analysis provides no evidence for an excess of CV events for rofecoxib relative to either placebo or the non-naproxen NSAIDs that were studied. Differences observed between rofecoxib and naproxen are likely the result of the antiplatelet effects of the latter agent.

Konstam MA et al. Circ 2001;104:2280CEB-rama.org

Fallacy perpetuatedMeta-analysis

• 5 of 7 authors were Merck employees• Pooled composite endpoint of all-cause

mortality, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal stroke

• Trials included were all Merck sponsored studies and were weighted with unpublished in-house phase II/III studies

CEB-rama.org

Page 43: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

43

Independent meta-analysis

• Lancet 2004;364:2021• Cumulative meta-analysis• Data from

- Cochrane- MEDLINE- EMBASE- CINAHL

CEB-rama.org

CC-EBM

Page 44: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

44

CC-EBM

Meta-analysis of RCT comparing rofecoxib with control

CC-EBM

Cumulative meta-analysis of RCT

comparing rofecoxib with control

Page 45: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

45

Mechanism

• COX-2 inhibitor- Lack of antiplatelet effect (inhibiting

production of prostacyclin)- Without changing the production of

the prothrombotic product, thromboxane.

CEB-rama.org

Government ineptitude

• FDA approves drugs on the proviso that companies collect, and report all ADRs.

• Companies often promise post-marketing clinical trials but in practice, more than half are never undertaken.

• FDA under pressure to speed up approvals but no money for surveillance or analysis.

CEB-rama.org

Page 46: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

46

Lessons1. Pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted2. Earlier critical appraisal might have helped3. No substitute for independent external review4. RCTs are not the best way to detect harm5. Observational studies should not be forgotten6. Healthy skepticism is good

CEB-rama.org

Dr Graham, associate director in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, said an estimated 88 000 to 139 000 Americans had heart attacks and strokes as a result of taking rofecoxib.

The number, he said, far exceeds earlier disasters such as the 5000 to 10000 children born in the 1960s with birth defects related to thalidomide

CEB-rama.org

Page 47: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

47

Do no harm

CEB-rama.org

CC-EBM

Why Evidence-Based Medicine Practice?

Page 48: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

48

Systematic search for best evidence

Clinical Question

Assessment of validity

Assessment of applicability

Clinical circumstance and patient values

Decision

EBM AS A CYCLE

CEB-rama.org

What EBM is not:

• Cookbook medicine• Overrules experience/expertise• Always about RCT’s• Always cost-minimizing

CEB-rama.org

Page 49: Clinical Appraisal on Risk & Harm Study · Preclinical toxicology testing on animals Investigational new drug application FDA acceptance of IND Drug development CEB-rama.org FDA acceptance

22/04/57

49

Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics

Thank you

CEB-rama.org