Scholarlink

<p>In drug development, safety assessments must integrate data from heterogeneous sources including clinical trials, non-clinical toxicology, mechanistic evidence, and real-world evidence. At any given timepoint—such as protocol development, dose escalation, interim reviews, or regulatory safety reports—data may be incomplete, or contextually ambiguous. Teams often struggle to summarize the totality of evidence for a given safety topic in a way that is both scientifically rigorous and operationally consistent. There is a lack of a structured, reusable framework that enables critical appraisal and consistent communication of causality reasoning. Consequently, evaluations of safety information are frequently fragmented, logic trails get lost, and key conclusions may become difficult to defend or reproduce, particularly with changes in cross-functional teams or loss of institutional memory. Our framework recognizes and addresses these real-life operational challenges. We propose a structured application of the Bradford Hill Criteria (BHC) [<CitationRef CitationID="CR1">1</CitationRef>] that offers a “plug-and-play” architecture for organizing evidence from multiple sources consistently. The application of this framework standardizes the interpretation and also allows for the modular integration of new evidence over time. In order to achieve this, we offer a contemporary interpretation of the individual criteria in the context of safety assessments to facilitate their consistent application. Furthermore, teams are guided on mapping of data types—e.g., preclinical findings, spontaneous case reports, PK/PD data, or RWE—into a reproducible causality narrative that can be iteratively updated across the product lifecycle. Ultimately, this approach facilitates transparent communication of safety evaluations to stakeholders and supports informed decision-making in drug development and post-marketing surveillance. Practically, this structured approach can be used during safety planning [<CitationRef CitationID="CR4">4</CitationRef>] at critical milestones, including Investigational New Drug (IND) applications. In early clinical development, uncertainties are inevitable, and evolving safety signals must be evaluated rigorously and transparently in a comprehensive and consistent manner.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Enhancing Safety Evaluations: A Comprehensive Framework for Evidence-Based Safety Assessment Using the Bradford Hill Criteria

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月8日

查看全文
  • Anja Loos,
  • Elian Khazneh,
  • Jürgen Kübler

摘要

In drug development, safety assessments must integrate data from heterogeneous sources including clinical trials, non-clinical toxicology, mechanistic evidence, and real-world evidence. At any given timepoint—such as protocol development, dose escalation, interim reviews, or regulatory safety reports—data may be incomplete, or contextually ambiguous. Teams often struggle to summarize the totality of evidence for a given safety topic in a way that is both scientifically rigorous and operationally consistent. There is a lack of a structured, reusable framework that enables critical appraisal and consistent communication of causality reasoning. Consequently, evaluations of safety information are frequently fragmented, logic trails get lost, and key conclusions may become difficult to defend or reproduce, particularly with changes in cross-functional teams or loss of institutional memory. Our framework recognizes and addresses these real-life operational challenges. We propose a structured application of the Bradford Hill Criteria (BHC) [1] that offers a “plug-and-play” architecture for organizing evidence from multiple sources consistently. The application of this framework standardizes the interpretation and also allows for the modular integration of new evidence over time. In order to achieve this, we offer a contemporary interpretation of the individual criteria in the context of safety assessments to facilitate their consistent application. Furthermore, teams are guided on mapping of data types—e.g., preclinical findings, spontaneous case reports, PK/PD data, or RWE—into a reproducible causality narrative that can be iteratively updated across the product lifecycle. Ultimately, this approach facilitates transparent communication of safety evaluations to stakeholders and supports informed decision-making in drug development and post-marketing surveillance. Practically, this structured approach can be used during safety planning [4] at critical milestones, including Investigational New Drug (IND) applications. In early clinical development, uncertainties are inevitable, and evolving safety signals must be evaluated rigorously and transparently in a comprehensive and consistent manner.