Determining What Represents Value in the Treatment of Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough from the Perspective of Key Stakeholders in Spain Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Burden of Disease Associated with Refractory and Unexplained Chronic Cough in Canada: Results from a National Survey

INTRODUCTION

Chronic cough (persisting for ≥ 8 weeks) is a common disorder that includes refractory chronic cough (RCC; cough that persists despite treatment of underlying disease) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC; cough with no identifiable cause). We evaluated self-reported health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and work/activity impairment associated with RCC/UCC in Canada.

METHODS

Our exploratory study included Canadians in the Leger Opinion Panel with RCC or UCC. Key entry criteria were ≥ 18 years of age, cough for ≥ 8 weeks, not currently smoking/quit ≥ 1 year ago, no serious respiratory disease or lung cancer, and not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Respondents completed a 30-min online survey with general and cough-specific HR-QoL questionnaires, including the EuroQol (EQ) visual analogue scale (VAS), EQ-5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), cough severity VAS, Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SPH).

RESULTS

Of 49,076 individuals who completed the chronic cough screening questionnaire (July 30-September 1, 2021), 1,620 (3.3%) met entry criteria for RCC/UCC and 1,046 (2.1%) completed the survey. The mean age of respondents was 45 years and 61% were female. Respondents reported impairments in global HR-QoL (EQ-VAS 73.8, 61% with anxiety/depression on the EQ-5D-5L) and cough-specific HR-QoL (mean cough severity VAS score 29.7, LCQ index 15.2). Work and non-work activities were reduced by 34% and 30%, respectively, on the WPAI-SPH.

CONCLUSION

RCC/UCC is prevalent in Canada and associated with impaired HR-QoL, particularly in mental health domains. Additional support and management options may be required to fully address this burden.

Value contribution of cenobamate for the treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions worldwide. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, despite the availability of many anti-seizure medications, including the latest options, called third-generation anti-seizure medications (ASMs), approximately 40% of people with epilepsy present drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. In a chronic disease with a portfolio of available ASMs, the decision to introduce a new therapeutic alternative must follow a holistic evaluation of value provided. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine the value contribution of a treatment in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of cenobamate in the treatment of FOS in patients with DRE compared with third-generation ASMs using reflective MCDA-based methodology.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and grey literature sources) was performed to populate the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) MCDA framework adapted to determine what represents value in the management of FOS in patients with DRE in Spain. The study was conducted in two phases. The first took place in 2021 with a multi-stakeholder group of eight participants. The second phase was conducted in 2022 with a multi-stakeholder group of 32 participants. Participants were trained in MCDA methodology and scored four evidence matrices (cenobamate vs. brivaracetam, vs. perampanel, vs. lacosamide and vs. eslicarbazepine acetate). Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology.

RESULTS

DRE is considered a very severe condition associated with many important unmet needs, mainly with regard to the lack of more effective treatments to achieve the ultimate goal of treatment. Compared to third-generation ASMs, cenobamate is perceived to have a better efficacy profile based on improvements in responder rate and seizure freedom. Regarding safety, it is considered to have a similar profile to alternatives and a positive quality-of-life profile. Cenobamate results in lower direct medical costs (excluding pharmacological) and indirect costs. Overall, cenobamate is regarded as providing a high therapeutic impact and supported by high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reflective MCDA methodology and stakeholders' experience in clinical management of epilepsy in Spain, cenobamate is perceived as a value-added option for the treatment of patients with DRE when compared with third-generation ASMs.

Which value aspects are relevant for the evaluation of medical devices? Exploring stakeholders' views through a Web-Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Implementation and uptake of health technology assessment for evaluating medical devices require including aspects that different stakeholders consider relevant, beyond cost and effectiveness. However, the involvement of stakeholders in sharing their views still needs to be improved.

OBJECTIVE

This article explores the relevance of distinct value aspects for evaluating different types of medical devices according to stakeholders' views.

METHODS

Thirty-four value aspects collected through literature review and expert validation were the input for a 2-round Web-Delphi process. In the Web-Delphi, a panel of participants from five stakeholders' groups (healthcare professionals, buyers and policymakers, academics, industry, and patients and citizens) judged the relevance of each aspect, by assigning a relevance-level ('Critical', 'Fundamental', 'Complementary', or 'Irrelevant'), for two types of medical devices separately: 'Implantable' and 'In vitro tests based on biomarkers'. Opinions were analysed at the panel and group level, and similarities across devices were identified.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four participants completed the process. No aspects were considered 'Irrelevant', neither for the panel nor for stakeholder groups, in both types of devices. The panel considered effectiveness and safety-related aspects 'Critical' (e.g., 'Adverse events for the patient'), and costs-related aspects 'Fundamental' (e.g., 'Cost of the medical device'). Several additional aspects not included in existing frameworks' literature, e.g., related to environmental impact and devices' usage by the healthcare professional, were deemed as relevant by the panel. A moderate to substantial agreement across and within groups was observed.

CONCLUSION

Different stakeholders agree on the relevance of including multiple aspects in medical devices' evaluation. This study produces key information to inform the development of frameworks for valuing medical devices, and to guide evidence collection.

Characteristics and Management of Patients with Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough in Outpatient Hospital Clinics in Spain: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

Chronic cough (cough that persists for ≥ 8 weeks) can cause a range of physical symptoms and psychosocial effects that significantly impair patients' quality of life. Refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC) are challenging to diagnose and manage, with substantial economic implications for healthcare systems.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter non-interventional study aimed to characterize the profile and health resource consumption of patients with RCC or UCC who attended outpatient clinics at Spanish hospitals. Data were collected from medical records of patients with RCC or UCC for up to 3 years before study inclusion.

RESULTS

The patient cohort (n = 196) was representative of the chronic cough population (77.6% female, mean age 58.5 years). Two-thirds of patients (n = 126) had RCC. The most frequently visited doctors were pulmonologists (93.4% of patients) and primary care physicians (78.6%), with a mean of 5 visits per patient over three years' observation. The most common diagnostic tests were chest x-ray (83.7%) and spirometry with bronchodilation (77.0%). The most commonly prescribed treatments were proton pump inhibitors (79.6%) and respiratory medications (87.8%). Antibiotics were prescribed empirically to 56 (28.6%) patients. Differences between RCC or UCC groups related mainly to approaches used to manage cough-associated conditions (gastroesophageal reflux disease, asthma) in patients with RCC.

CONCLUSION

RCC and UCC are responsible for high health resource utilization in Spanish hospitals. Specific treatments targeting the pathological processes driving chronic cough may provide opportunities to reduce the associated burden for patients and healthcare systems.