1
|
Gauvreau CL, Schreyer L, Gibson PJ, Koo A, Ungar WJ, Regier D, Chan K, Hayeems R, Gibson J, Palmer A, Peacock S, Denburg AE. Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2024; 27:879-888. [PMID: 38548179 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2023] [Revised: 03/07/2024] [Accepted: 03/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/20/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. METHODS We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. CONCLUSIONS We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cindy L Gauvreau
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Leighton Schreyer
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Paul J Gibson
- McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alicia Koo
- Department of Pharmacy, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Wendy J Ungar
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Dean Regier
- BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kelvin Chan
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Robin Hayeems
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jennifer Gibson
- Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Antonia Palmer
- Ac4orn: Advocacy for Canadian Childhood Cancer Research Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Stuart Peacock
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Cancer Control Research, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Avram E Denburg
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Division of Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Takhar P, Geirnaert M, Gavura S, Beca J, Mercer RE, Denburg A, Muñoz C, Tadrous M, Parmar A, Dionne F, Boehm D, Chambers C, Craig E, Trudeau M, Cheung MC, Houlihan J, McDonald V, Pechlivanoglou P, Taylor M, Wasylenko E, Wranik WD, Chan KKW. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration. Curr Oncol 2024; 31:1876-1898. [PMID: 38668044 PMCID: PMC11049582 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31040141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2024] [Revised: 02/09/2024] [Accepted: 03/27/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pam Takhar
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada; (P.T.); (S.G.); (J.B.); (R.E.M.); (C.M.)
| | | | - Scott Gavura
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada; (P.T.); (S.G.); (J.B.); (R.E.M.); (C.M.)
| | - Jaclyn Beca
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada; (P.T.); (S.G.); (J.B.); (R.E.M.); (C.M.)
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Rebecca E. Mercer
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada; (P.T.); (S.G.); (J.B.); (R.E.M.); (C.M.)
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Evaluative Clinical Services, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada;
| | - Avram Denburg
- Division of Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada
| | - Caroline Muñoz
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada; (P.T.); (S.G.); (J.B.); (R.E.M.); (C.M.)
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Mina Tadrous
- Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2, Canada;
- Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON M5S 1B2, Canada
| | - Ambica Parmar
- Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada; (A.P.); (M.T.)
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
| | | | - Darryl Boehm
- Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, Regina, SK S4W 0G3, Canada;
| | | | - Erica Craig
- New Brunswick Cancer Network, Fredericton, NB E3B 5G8, Canada;
| | - Maureen Trudeau
- Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada; (A.P.); (M.T.)
| | - Matthew C. Cheung
- Evaluative Clinical Services, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada;
- Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada; (A.P.); (M.T.)
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
| | | | - Valerie McDonald
- Independent Patient Representative, Toronto, ON M6G 2V3, Canada;
| | - Petros Pechlivanoglou
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada;
| | | | - Eric Wasylenko
- Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
- John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R7, Canada
| | - Wiesława Dominika Wranik
- Department of Public and International Affairs, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada;
- Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
| | - Kelvin K. W. Chan
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada; (P.T.); (S.G.); (J.B.); (R.E.M.); (C.M.)
- Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Evaluative Clinical Services, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada;
- Division of Medical Oncology & Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M3, Canada; (A.P.); (M.T.)
- Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Al-Jedai A, Almudaiheem H, Alruthia Y, Althemery A, Alabdulkarim H, Ojeil R, Alrumaih A, AlGhannam S, AlMutairi A, Hasnan Z. A Step Toward the Development of the First National Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework to Support Healthcare Decision Making in Saudi Arabia. Value Health Reg Issues 2024; 41:100-107. [PMID: 38306770 DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2023.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/24/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the feasibility of implementing multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to select the criteria for preparing a national MCDA framework for health technology assessment of orphan drugs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). METHODS The study was conducted in 3 phases. In phase I, a targeted literature review was performed to gather relevant information on the implementation of MCDA in healthcare decision making. Phase II was a cross-sectional survey, conducted to obtain insights from different stakeholders and key opinion leaders on specific topics from the KSA perspective. Phase III included a round-table discussion involving experts to validate the results obtained in the phase II survey and further elaborate on specific requirements that may be critical for developing the first national MCDA framework in the KSA. RESULTS All the key opinion leaders involved in the study acknowledged the importance of implementing MCDA in the KSA. The Ministry of Health was assigned the responsibility of chairing the MCDA decision process. The experts selected the quantitative, qualitative, and economic criteria to be considered for the MCDA framework. The stakeholders decided to initiate a pilot phase using the deliberative MCDA methodology for the assessment of orphan drugs based on the selected criteria for a period of 1 year and then reevaluate the need to adapt the pragmatic MCDA model. CONCLUSION This article describes the novel initiative that examined the feasibility and process required for the development of the first MCDA framework in the KSA to support healthcare decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmed Al-Jedai
- Therapeutic Affairs for Support Services, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Hajer Almudaiheem
- Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committee, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Yazeed Alruthia
- Pharmacoeconomics, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Abdullah Althemery
- Pharmacoeconomics, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Hana Alabdulkarim
- Drug Policy Center, The Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Rita Ojeil
- Market Access & HEOR, Carexso, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
| | - Ali Alrumaih
- Medical Services Department, Prince Sultan Cardiac Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Suliman AlGhannam
- Population Health Department, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | | | - Zuhair Hasnan
- Medical Genomics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ortiz Nunez A, Gonzalez Portela J, Zozaya N, Fernández I. Narrative review of value frameworks in urothelial carcinoma and positioning of enfortumab vedotin. J Med Econ 2024; 27:1222-1231. [PMID: 39258976 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2403351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2024] [Revised: 09/05/2024] [Accepted: 09/09/2024] [Indexed: 09/12/2024]
Abstract
AIMS Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma. METHODS A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023. RESULTS Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Néboa Zozaya
- Department of Health Affairs & Policy Research, Vivactis Weber, Madrid, Spain
| | - Irene Fernández
- Department of Health Affairs & Policy Research, Vivactis Weber, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Takami A, Kato M, Deguchi H, Igarashi A. Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2023; 23:749-759. [PMID: 37339436 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2223984] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/07/2023] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP. AREAS COVERED We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements. EXPERT OPINION Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akina Takami
- Market Access, Public Affairs & Patient Experience, Japan Pharma Business Unit, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masafumi Kato
- Market Access, Public Affairs & Patient Experience, Japan Pharma Business Unit, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hisato Deguchi
- Market Access, Public Affairs & Patient Experience, Japan Pharma Business Unit, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Ataru Igarashi
- Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
- Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:5774-5791. [PMID: 36005193 PMCID: PMC9406873 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29080455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 08/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.
Collapse
|
7
|
Development, testing, and implementation of a new procedure to assess the clinical added benefit of pharmaceuticals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2022; 38:e58. [PMID: 35819299 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462322000411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The reimbursement process for innovative health technologies in Hungary lacks any formalized assessment of clinical added benefit (CAB). The aim of this research is to present the development, retrospective testing, and implementation of a local assessment framework for determining the CAB of cancer treatments at the Department of Health Technology Assessment of the National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition in Hungary. METHODS The assessment framework was drafted after screening existing methods and a retrospective comparison of local reimbursement dossiers to that of German and French methods. The Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale of the European Society for Medical Oncology was chosen to rate the extent of CAB in oncology, as part of a conclusion complemented by the assessment of endpoint relevance and the quality of evidence. Several rounds of retrospective assessments have been conducted involving all clinical assessors, iterated with semistructured discussions to consolidate divergence between assessors. External stakeholders were consulted to provide feedback on the framework. RESULTS Retrospective assessments resulted in average more than 75 percent concordance between assessors on each element of the conclusion. Input from ten stakeholders was also incorporated; stakeholders were generally supportive, and they mostly commented on the concept, the elements of the framework, and its implementation. CONCLUSIONS The procedure is suitable for routine use in the decision-making process to describe the CAB of antineoplastic technologies in Hungary. Further extension of the framework is required to cover more disease areas for structured and comparable conclusions on CAB of innovative health technologies.
Collapse
|
8
|
Zhang Y, Wei Y, Li H, Chen Y, Guo Y, Han S, Shi L, Guan X. Prices and Clinical Benefit of National Price-Negotiated Anticancer Medicines in China. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2022; 40:715-724. [PMID: 35764914 PMCID: PMC9270265 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01161-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/23/2022] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND High prices of anticancer medicines have increased the economic burden for both patients and health insurance systems. Since 2017, China has implemented national price negotiations for medicines, relying on evidence from health technology assessments. We aim to assess the relation between negotiated price and value of anticancer medicines listed in China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). METHODS For all price-negotiated anticancer medicines and corresponding indications listed in the latest NRDL between 2017 and 2020, we collected their clinical outcomes data, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), in supporting trials. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the association between the daily cost and clinical benefit of each indication. RESULTS In total, 75 indications of 46 branded anticancer medicines were included for analysis. The median daily costs for the anticancer therapies that had gone through negotiation in 2017-2020 were US$87.6, US$71.8, US$58.9, and US$39.7, respectively. For indications supported by randomized trials, no correlation between daily costs and OS and PFS benefit of the price-negotiated cancer therapies was observed (N = 41, r = -0.05, and N = 49, r = 0.04, respectively). For cancer indications newly listed in NRDL in 2020, the association between their daily cost and OS benefit was -0.78 (N = 4, p = 0.221) and 0.01 (N = 8, p = 0.986) before and after the price negotiation. CONCLUSION Though the negotiation policy decreased prices of anticancer medicines in China, no statistically significant correlation was observed between their daily costs and clinical benefits. A more transparent and credible pricing approach needs to be established to promote value-based anticancer medicines and healthcare system efficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yichen Zhang
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijng, China
| | - Yuxuan Wei
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijng, China
- Fanhai International School of Finance, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Huangqianyu Li
- International Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Yixuan Chen
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijng, China
| | - Yiran Guo
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijng, China
| | - Sheng Han
- International Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Luwen Shi
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijng, China
- International Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaodong Guan
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, 38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijng, China.
- International Research Centre for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Campolina AG, Suzumura EA, Hong QN, de Soárez PC. Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2021; 22:365-380. [PMID: 34913775 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2022.2019580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology. AREAS COVERED Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria. EXPERT OPINION There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.,Centro de Investigação Translacional Em Oncologia, Instituto Do Cancer Do Estado de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Erica Aranha Suzumura
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Quan Nha Hong
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Patrícia Coelho de Soárez
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina Fmusp, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Robinson R, Haviland JS. Understanding Statistical Significance and Avoiding Common Pitfalls. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:804-806. [PMID: 34215450 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2021] [Revised: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- R Robinson
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Thomson S, Everest L, Witzke N, Jiao T, Delos Santos S, Nguyen V, Cheung MC, Chan KKW. Examining the association between oncology drug clinical benefit and the time to public reimbursement. Cancer Med 2021; 11:380-391. [PMID: 34850587 PMCID: PMC8729052 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4455] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Revised: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO‐VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO‐MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation. Methods Oncology drug indications submitted to pCODR between July 2011 and October 2018 were examined. Included indications had a regulatory approval date, completed the pCODR review process, received a positive pCODR recommendation, and been funded by at least one province. Trials cited for clinical efficacy were used to determine the clinical benefit (per ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS) of drug indications. Results Eighty‐four indications were identified, yielding 65 ASCO‐VF and 50 ESMO‐MCBS scores. The mean ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores were 44.9 (SD = 21.1) and 3.3 (SD = 1.0), respectively. The mean time to provincial reimbursement from pCODR recommendation was 13.2 months (SD = 9.3 months). Higher ASCO‐VF and ESMO‐MCBS scores had low correlation with shorter time to reimbursement, (ρ = −0.21) and (ρ = 0.24), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, ASCO‐VF (p = 0.40) and ESMO‐MCBS (p = 0.31) scores were not significantly associated with time to reimbursement. Province and year of pCODR recommendation were associated with time to reimbursement in both ASCO and ESMO models. Conclusions Oncology drug indications with higher clinical benefit do not appear to be reimbursed faster than those with low clinical benefit. This suggests the need to prioritize oncology drug indications based on clinical benefit to ensure quicker access to oncology drugs with the greatest benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sasha Thomson
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Louis Everest
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Noah Witzke
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Tina Jiao
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Seanthel Delos Santos
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vivian Nguyen
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthew C Cheung
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kelvin K W Chan
- Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Odette Cancer Centre Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Cusano E, Wong C, Taguedong E, Vaska M, Abedin T, Nixon N, Karim S, Tang P, Heng DYC, Ezeife D. Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:4894-4928. [PMID: 34898590 PMCID: PMC8628676 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28060412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 11/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ellen Cusano
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
- Correspondence:
| | - Chelsea Wong
- Faculty of Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
| | - Eddy Taguedong
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada;
| | - Marcus Vaska
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Tasnima Abedin
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Nancy Nixon
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Safiya Karim
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Patricia Tang
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Daniel Y. C. Heng
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Doreen Ezeife
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Godman B, Fadare J, Kwon HY, Dias CZ, Kurdi A, Dias Godói IP, Kibuule D, Hoxha I, Opanga S, Saleem Z, Bochenek T, Marković-Peković V, Mardare I, Kalungia AC, Campbell S, Allocati E, Pisana A, Martin AP, Meyer JC. Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future. J Comp Eff Res 2021; 10:1019-1052. [PMID: 34241546 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian Godman
- Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, SE-141 86, Stockholm, Sweden
- School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Joseph Fadare
- Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria
- Department of Medicine, Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria
| | - Hye-Young Kwon
- Division of Biology and Public Health, Mokwon University, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Carolina Zampirolli Dias
- Graduate Program in Public Health, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| | - Amanj Kurdi
- Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK
- School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa
- Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
| | - Isabella Piassi Dias Godói
- Institute of Health & Biological Studies - Universidade Federal do Sul e Sudeste do Pará, Avenida dos Ipês, s/n, Cidade Universitária, Cidade Jardim, Marabá, Pará, Brazil
- Researcher of the Group (CNPq) for Epidemiological, Economic and Pharmacological Studies of Arboviruses (EEPIFARBO) - Universidade Federal do Sul e Sudeste do Pará; Avenida dos Ipês, s/n, Cidade Universitária, Cidade Jardim, Marabá, Pará, Brazil
| | - Dan Kibuule
- Department of Pharmacy Practice & Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia
| | - Iris Hoxha
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine Tirana, Albania
| | - Sylvia Opanga
- Department of Pharmaceutics & Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Zikria Saleem
- Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
| | - Tomasz Bochenek
- Department of Nutrition & Drug Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Vanda Marković-Peković
- Department of Social Pharmacy, University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Medicine, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia & Herzegovina
| | - Ileana Mardare
- "Carol Davila" University of Medicine & Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
| | | | - Stephen Campbell
- Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Eleonora Allocati
- Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche 'Mario Negri' IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Alice Pisana
- Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Antony P Martin
- Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, The University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK
| | - Johanna C Meyer
- School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Leighl NB, Nirmalakumar S, Ezeife DA, Gyawali B. An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2021; 41:1-12. [PMID: 33956494 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_100028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Increasing cancer drug prices present global challenges to treatment access and cancer outcomes. Substantial variability exists in drug pricing across countries. In countries without universal health care, patients are responsible for treatment costs. Low- or middle-income countries are heavily impacted, with limited patient access to novel cancer treatments. Financial toxicity is seen across cancer types, countries, and health care systems. Those at highest risk include younger patients, new immigrants, visible minority groups, and those without private health coverage. Currently, cancer drug pricing does not correlate with value or clinical benefit. Value-based pricing of oncology drugs may incentivize development of higher-value medicines and eliminate excess spending on drugs that yield little benefit. Generics and biosimilars in oncology can also improve affordability and patient access, offering dramatic reductions in drug spending while maintaining patient benefit. Oncologists can promote value-based care by following evidence-based clinical guidelines that avoid low-value treatments. Researchers can also engage in value-based research that critically explores optimal cancer drug dosing, schedules, and treatment duration and defines patient populations most likely to benefit (e.g., through biomarker selection). Cancer Groundshot proposes that we improve outcomes for today's patients with cancer, including broader global access for high-value treatments, promotion of affordable cancer control strategies, and reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality through low-cost prevention and screening initiatives. Moving forward, major oncology societies recommend promoting uniform global access to essential cancer medicines and avoiding financial harm for patients as key principles in addressing the affordability of cancer drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha B Leighl
- Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sharon Nirmalakumar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Doreen A Ezeife
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Bishal Gyawali
- Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Godman B, Hill A, Simoens S, Selke G, Selke Krulichová I, Zampirolli Dias C, Martin AP, Oortwijn W, Timoney A, Gustafsson LL, Voncina L, Kwon HY, Gulbinovic J, Gotham D, Wale J, Cristina Da Silva W, Bochenek T, Allocati E, Kurdi A, Ogunleye OO, Meyer JC, Hoxha I, Malaj A, Hierländer C, Sauermann R, Hamelinck W, Petrova G, Laius O, Langner I, Yfantopoulos J, Joppi R, Jakupi A, Greiciute-Kuprijanov I, Vella Bonanno P, Piepenbrink JH, de Valk V, Wladysiuk M, Marković-Peković V, Mardare I, Fürst J, Tomek D, Obach Cortadellas M, Zara C, Pontes C, McTaggart S, Laba TL, Melien Ø, Wong-Rieger D, Bae S, Hill R. Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2021; 21:527-540. [PMID: 33535841 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1884546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian Godman
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.,Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,Division of Public Health Pharmacy and Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa.,School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Andrew Hill
- Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK
| | - Steven Simoens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium
| | - Gisbert Selke
- Wissenschaftliches Institut Der AOK (WIdO), Berlin, Germany
| | - Iva Selke Krulichová
- Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Hradec, Králové, Czech Republic
| | - Carolina Zampirolli Dias
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Postgraduate Program in Medicines and Pharmaceutical Services, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.,SUS Collaborating Centre for Technology Assessment and Excellence in Health (CCATES), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
| | - Antony P Martin
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK.,QC Medica, Sim Balk Lane, York UK
| | - Wija Oortwijn
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Angela Timoney
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Lars L Gustafsson
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Hye-Young Kwon
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,Division of Biology & Public Health, Mokwon University, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Jolanta Gulbinovic
- Department of Pathology, Forensic Medicine and Pharmacology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
| | | | - Janet Wale
- Independent Consumer Advocate, Brunswick, Victoria, Australia
| | - Wânia Cristina Da Silva
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Postgraduate Program in Medicines and Pharmaceutical Services, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.,Data and Knowledge Integration Center for Health(CIDACS), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)/ Salvador, Bahia, Brazil
| | - Tomasz Bochenek
- Department of Nutrition and Drug Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Eleonora Allocati
- Istituto Di Ricerche Farmacologiche 'Mario Negri' IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Amanj Kurdi
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.,Division of Public Health Pharmacy and Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa.,Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq
| | - Olayinka O Ogunleye
- Department of Pharmacology, Therapeutics and Toxicology, Lagos State University College of Medicine, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria.,Department of Medicine, Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - Johanna C Meyer
- Division of Public Health Pharmacy and Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa
| | - Iris Hoxha
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine, Tirana, Albania
| | | | - Christian Hierländer
- Department of Pharmaceutical Affairs, Federation of Social Insurances, Vienna, Austria
| | - Robert Sauermann
- Department of Pharmaceutical Affairs, Federation of Social Insurances, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Guenka Petrova
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy and Pharmacoeconomics, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Ott Laius
- State Agency of Medicines, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Irene Langner
- Wissenschaftliches Institut Der AOK (WIdO), Berlin, Germany
| | - John Yfantopoulos
- School of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece
| | - Roberta Joppi
- Pharmaceutical Drug Department, Azienda Sanitaria Locale of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Arianit Jakupi
- Faculty of Pharmacy, UBT - Higher Education Institution, Prishtina, Kosovo
| | | | - Patricia Vella Bonanno
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - Vincent de Valk
- National Health Care Institute (ZIN), XH, Diemen, Netherlands
| | | | - Vanda Marković-Peković
- Faculty of Medicine, Department of Social Pharmacy, University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
| | - Ileana Mardare
- Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Management Department, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Jurij Fürst
- Health Insurance Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Dominik Tomek
- Faculty of Medicine, Slovak Medical University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia
| | | | - Corinne Zara
- Drug Department, Catalan Health Service, Catalan Health Service, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Caridad Pontes
- Drug Department, Catalan Health Service, Catalan Health Service, Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Pharmacology, Therapeutics and Toxicology, Universitat Autònoma De Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Tracey-Lea Laba
- Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, Sydney, NSW
| | - Øyvind Melien
- Reviews and Health Technology Assessments, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - Durhane Wong-Rieger
- Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, Liverpool, Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - SeungJin Bae
- College of Pharmacy, Ewha Woman's University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ruaraidh Hill
- Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Whelan Building, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Dionne F, Mitton C. Is Multicriteria Decision Analysis a Resource Allocation Framework? VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 23:1400-1401. [PMID: 33032785 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- François Dionne
- Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
| | - Craig Mitton
- Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
| |
Collapse
|