Net efficacy adjusted for risk (NEAR): A simple procedure for measuring risk: Benefit balance

12Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Although several mathematical models have been proposed to assess the risk:benefit of drugs in one measure, their use in practice has been rather limited. Our objective was to design a simple, easily applicable model. In this respect, measuring the proportion of patients who respond favorably to treatment without being affected by adverse drug reactions (ADR) could be a suitable endpoint. However, remarkably few published clinical trials report the data required to calculate this proportion. As an approach to the problem, we calculated the expected proportion of this type of patients. Methodology/Principal Findings: Theoretically, responders without ADR may be obtained by multiplying the total number of responders by the total number of subjects that did not suffer ADR, and dividing the product by the total number of subjects studied. When two drugs are studied, the same calculation may be repeated for the second drug. Then, by constructing a 2×2 table with the expected frequencies of responders with and without ADR, and non-responders with and without ADR, the odds ratio and relative risk with their confidence intervals may be easily calculated and graphically represented on a logarithmic scale. Such measures represent "net efficacy adjusted for risk" (NEAR). We assayed the model with results extracted from several published clinical trials or meta-analyses. On comparing our results with those originally reported by the authors, marked differences were found in some cases, with ADR arising as a relevant factor to balance the clinical benefit obtained. The particular features of the adverse reaction that must be weighed against benefit is discussed in the paper. Conclusion: NEAR representing overall risk-benefit may contribute to improving knowledge of drug clinical usefulness. As most published clinical trials tend to overestimate benefits and underestimate toxicity, our measure represents an effort to change this trend. © 2008 Boada et al.

References Powered by Scopus

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?

14781Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMISED TRIAL OF WARFARIN AND ASPIRIN FOR PREVENTION OF THROMBOEMBOLIC COMPLICATIONS IN CHRONIC ATRIAL FIBRILLATION. The Copenhagen AFASAK Study

1740Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment

1409Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

One-year maintenance outcomes among patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis who responded to induction therapy with adalimumab: Subgroup analyses from ULTRA 2

118Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: A systematic review and classification of available methodologies

106Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in inflammatory arthritis: Integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad panel of rheumatologists in the 3e initiative

77Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boada, J. N., Boada, C., García-Sáiz, M., García, M., Fernández, E., & Gómez, E. (2008). Net efficacy adjusted for risk (NEAR): A simple procedure for measuring risk: Benefit balance. PLoS ONE, 3(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003580

Readers over time

‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 12

52%

Researcher 5

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

17%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 19

76%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

12%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

8%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0