Clinical risk categories

A matrix indicating which clinical risk category applies to each combination of severity and likelihood (Table 2.2). 

The resulting matrix is a simple way to communicate and evaluate risk in a repeat-able and consistent manner. At the point of evaluating risk each unique severity category can be paired with a unique likelihood category and this combination points to a non-unique clinical risk category. Once embedded, this simple grid acts... 

How race will be used in clinical practice raises some interesting problems in their own right. For instance, if a racial difference is identified, its use in clinical practice requires a physician to be aware of the racial difference, make an external assessment of the patient s race, and then identify whether the patient falls into an at-risk category. Further, a patient may not agree with the physician s racial assessment and hence may refuse the differential treatment guidelines. These problems are fortunately outside the modelers realm. 

Awareness of bias - Bias is discussed in Sect. 15.2. Given that the selection of a severity and likelihood category involves a judgement call, there is an opportunity for bias to contaminate the evaluation. Should an organisation have an agenda for the clinical risk evaluation to have a particular outcome, it can be tempting to express a hazards in terms of a special case. It is therefore essential... 

Note that unlike many other causes of clinical risk, the failure modes in this category do not actnally relate to the patient s clinical data at all. Instead it is the decision support content, rnles, algorithms and associated functionality which trigger the hazard. Controls in this area are not just about assuring the system but also about make sure that the advice provided is of a suitable level of quality. In some cases the decision snpport content and rules might be provided by a third party and checks should be undertaken to ensure that the information is appropriately governed, com-mensnrate with best practice and kept up to date. 

In order to establish whether this confers any clinical benefit, several multicenter randomized controlled trials have been published [1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]. Half of these trials included patients at high risk of perioperative complications, and half did not require the presence of risk factors. Trials that did not identify high-risk categories for surgery did not identify clear benefit from perioperative beta-blockade [5, 6, 9 ]. 

Second, the results in Table 6 do not account for possible differences between the NBFs and the large firms in different types of iimovation projects. Table 7 then reports the sample averages of the probability of success for the large firms and the NBFs in our three risk categories Rl, R2, and R3. We report the results for both the sample of the US firms running US-based clinical trials, and for the full sample. 

The therapeutic goal in autoimmune diseases such as RA is to control disease, to establish remission, and eventually to cure. In theory, this goal can be achieved using either Ag-specific approaches, for example, elimination of self-reactive T cells (assuming that a finite number of key Ags can be identified as the target of the autoimmune process in RA), or the non-Ag-specific approaches, for example, blockade of cytokines as in the case of TNF-a neutralization. Currently, only the latter types of approaches have yielded clinical benefit, and it is in this category that approaches to block chemokines or receptors may be included. Despite their appeal in terms of effectiveness, non-Ag-specific approaches carry a higher risk of immunosuppression and opportunistic infections (48). 

The preclinical knowledge base is initially developed by designing studies to answer fundamental questions. The development of this knowledge base is generally applicable to most pharmaceuticals as well as biopharmaceuticals, and include data to support (1) the relationship of the dose to the biological activity, (2) the relationship of the dose to the toxicity, (3) the effect of route and/or schedule on activity or toxicity and (4) identification of the potential risks for subsequent clinical studies. These questions are considered in the context of indication and/or disease state. In addition there are often unique concerns related to the specific category or product class. 

---