Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Evaluating vonoprazan and tegoprazan for gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment in Chinese Healthcare: an EVIDEM framework analysis

BACKGROUND

In Chinese healthcare settings, drug selection decisions are predominantly influenced by the Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee (PTC). This study evaluates two recently introduced potassium-competitive acid blockers, vonoprazan (VPZ) and tegoprazan (TPZ), utilizing the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM) framework.

METHODS

The study employed the 10th edition of EVIDEM, which includes a core model with five domains and 13 criteria. Two independent expert panels were involved: the PTC expert panel, tasked with assigning weights using a 5-point scale, defining scoring indicators, examining the evidence matrix, scoring, and decision-making; and the evidence matrix expert panel, responsible for conducting a systematic literature review, creating the evidence matrix, and evaluating the value contributions of VPZ and TPZ.

RESULTS

The analysis estimated the value contributions of VPZ and TPZ to be 0.59 and 0.54, respectively. The domain of 'economic consequences of intervention' showed the most significant variation in value contribution between the two drugs, followed by 'comparative outcomes of intervention' and 'type of benefit of intervention'.

CONCLUSION

Employing the EVIDEM framework, VPZ's value contribution was found to be marginally superior to that of TPZ. The EVIDEM framework demonstrates potential for broader application in Chinese medical institutions.

Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly infectious disease that poses a significant clinical and medical burden, as well as social disruption and economic costs, recognized by the World Health Organization as a public health issue. After several failed attempts to find preventive candidates (compounds, products, including vaccines), new alternatives might be available, one being nirsevimab, the first and only option approved for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season. The objective of this study was to develop a novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for RSV antibody-based preventive alternatives and to use it to assess the value of nirsevimab vs. placebo as a systematic immunization approach to prevent RSV in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

METHODS

Based on a pre-established model called Vaccinex, an ad-hoc MCDA framework was created to reflect relevant attributes for the assessment of current and future antibody-based preventive measures for RSV. The estimated value of nirsevimab was obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 9 experts. A retest and three sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nirsevimab was evaluated through a novel framework with 26 criteria by the committee as a measure that adds value (positive final estimated value: 0.56 ± 0.11) to the current RSV scenario in Spain, by providing a high efficacy for prevention of neonates and infants. In addition, its implementation might generate cost savings in hospitalizations and to the healthcare system and increase the level of public health awareness among the general population, while reducing health inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, nirsevimab has been evaluated as a measure which adds value for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background

Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials.

Objectives

The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting.

Methods

A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019).

Results

We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results.

Conclusions

These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made.

Limitations

This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method.

Study registration

The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882.

Funding

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

A multi-criteria decision analysis on the value of nintedanib for interstitial lung diseases

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to assess the value of nintedanib for non-idiopathic progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (non-IPF PF-ILD) and systemic sclerosis-associated ILD (SSc-ILD) in the Spanish context, using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).

METHODS

Following an adaptation of the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcision Making (EVIDEM) MCDA methodology, the estimated value of nintedanib was obtained by means of an additive linear model that combined individual weights (100-points distribution) of criteria with the individual scoring of nintedanib in each criterion for every indication, assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of twelve clinicians, patients, pharmacists, and decision-makers. To assess the reproducibility, an alternative weighting method was applied, as well as a re-test of weights and scores at a different moment of time.

RESULTS

The experts committee recognized nintedanib as an intervention with a positive value contribution in comparison to placebo for the treatment of non-IPF PF-ILD (0.50 ± 0.16, on a scale from -1 to 1) and SSc-ILD (0.40 ± 0.12), diseases which were considered as very severe and with high unmet needs. The drug was perceived as a treatment that provides an added therapeutic benefit for patients (0.06-0.07), given its proven clinical efficacy (0.05-0.06), slight improvements in patient-reported outcomes (0.01-0.02), and similar safety profile than placebo (-0.04-0.00), which will likely be positioned as a recommended therapy in the next clinical practice guidelines updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Under this increasingly used methodology, nintedanib has shown to provide a positive value estimate for non-IPF PF-ILD and SSc-ILD when compared to placebo in Spain.

A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) applied to three long-term prophylactic treatments for hereditary angioedema in Spain

Introduction

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain.

Methods

A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed.

Results

Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety.

Conclusion

Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.

Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Determine the Value of Prophylaxis Relative to On-Demand Treatment in Hemophilia A and Emicizumab versus Replacement Therapy in the Greek Healthcare Setting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Hemophilia A (HA) is a rare disease that is characterized by congenital underproduction or dysfunction of the endogenous coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). The aim of the present study was to determine the value of prophylaxis versus on-demand treatment strategies for moderate to severe HA (MtSHA) patients and the value of emicizumab in the prophylaxis of MtSHA in Greece, compared with short half-life (SHL) FVIII and extended half-life (EHL) FVIII through multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA).

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify a set of criteria relevant to the therapeutic approaches and therapies under investigation. A performance matrix was populated by two literature reviews and meta-analyses. The criteria selected were hierarchically classified by allocating weights on a 0-100 scale. The performances of therapies were scored at the 100-point scale. The value judgments utilized for weighing and scoring were sourced via a survey among independent multidisciplinary system stakeholders. A linear additive value function was used for the calculation of total value estimates.

RESULTS

The participants ranked 'annual number of bleedings per patient' and 'percentage of target joint bleeds' as the most important criteria, while the least important criterion was the 'annual treatment cost' for both assessments. Based on the weights elicited and the performance in each criterion, the overall value score was higher for prophylaxis treatment (58.27) compared with on-demand treatment (40.13). In the other comparison, the most valued treatment was emicizumab (77.05) followed by EHL FVIII (71.52) and SHL FVIII (19.88). According to the participants, the most important factors for managing MtSHA patients are those related to successful management of bleeding events given their contribution to improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

This MCDA has shown that the prophylaxis strategy was perceived as a more valuable option for managing MtSHA patients when compared with the on-demand strategy. Moreover, emicizumab adds higher value and improves patient QoL compared with replacement therapy for MtSHA in Greece. Emicizumab addresses important unmet needs due to its improved efficacy and mode of administration.

Identifying key unmet needs and value drivers in the treatment of focal-onset seizures (FOS) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in Spain through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. Approximately 40% of patients with epilepsy are pharmacoresistant after their seizures failed at least two antiseizure medications (ASMs). Adult patients experiencing focal-onset seizures (FOS) account for approximately 60% of all patients with epilepsy and they are more likely to become drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) than those with generalized onset. Drug-resistant epilepsy is associated with mortality, morbidity, and reduced quality of life. The information available on the clinical management, health outcomes, and unmet needs of the disease within the Spanish healthcare environment is very limited. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) allows determination of what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify the burden of DRE (clinical, quality of life, and economic) and the unmet needs in Spain and to determine what represents value in the treatment of FOS in DRE patients from the perspective of Spanish epileptologists.

METHODS

The steps taken to carry out the MCDA were based on previously published good methodological practices. A systematic literature review (combining biomedical databases and gray literature sources) was performed between March and April 2020. Results were reviewed and validated with three epileptologists in June 2020 and used to develop a MCDA value framework, adapted for FOS in DRE, composed of 12 quantitative criteria and 3 contextual criteria. A group of six Spanish epileptologists from four Spanish regions were trained in MCDA methodology before individually validating value criteria (and their definitions based on literature review findings) and assigned relative weights using an ordinal 6-points scale. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology.

RESULTS

Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem with important unmet needs affecting a considerably sized population. While safety and impact on quality of life of available ASMs are considered adequate, efficacy remains insufficient for patients to achieve seizure freedom and maintain it over time. Hence, the therapeutic benefit of pharmacological treatments currently used is regarded as suboptimal. Drug-resistant epilepsy management is associated with moderate pharmacological, relevant direct medical and high indirect costs. Quality of evidence available for current treatments is moderate. It is considered that DRE does not currently stand as a key priority for the Spanish healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-resistant epilepsy is considered a very severe health problem associated with relevant unmet needs. These include the lack of availability of specific treatment protocols, the need to improve early diagnosis by increasing the number of referrals to specialized epilepsy units and the availability of specific ASMs with improved efficacy and safety profiles, allowing to reach treatment objectives. Reflective MCDA provided a standardized, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria ascertaining what represents value from a holistic point of view and from the perspective of clinical experts, facilitating decision-making.

Development of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis Framework for Evaluating and Positioning Oncologic Treatments in Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

Several frameworks have been developed to define and quantify the value of oncologic therapies and to support decision making; however, they define treatment value mainly in terms of clinical benefit. As part of its mission to improve oncologic care, the ECO Foundation (Excellence and Quality in Oncology) directed this pilot study aimed at developing a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)-based framework for evaluating and positioning oncologic drugs in the clinical setting.

METHODS

The framework was developed following Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision-Making methodology, and literature was reviewed to identify relevant criteria. The selected criteria were then presented to a group of experts composed of 9 clinical oncologists who assessed each criterion for inclusion in the framework and suggested modifications in their definition and/or response scale. The framework was tested in 2 case studies (abemaciclib for advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer and TAS-102 for metastatic colorectal cancer) to validate the proposed framework; this was followed by a discussion of the results.

RESULTS

Eight of the 15 criteria presented to the experts were included in the framework: disease severity, unmet needs, comparative efficacy, comparative safety/tolerability, treatment intent, comparative treatment cost, comparative other medical costs, and quality of evidence. Framework validation in 2 drug cases resulted in similar value scores, although they were based on different contributing criteria and resulted in different clinical recommendations.

CONCLUSION

We developed and validated a reflective MCDA framework for the assessment and positioning of oncologic therapies in Spain. Additional work is needed to create a manual for practical decision making in the clinical setting.

A Multiple Stakeholder Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Diabetic Macular Edema Management: The MULTIDEX-EMD Study

BACKGROUND

The clinical and economic management of retinal diseases has become more complex following the introduction of new intravitreal treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers the potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional decision-making tools.

OBJECTIVES

A MCDA to determine the most relevant criteria to decision-making in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME) based on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in Spain was developed. This MCDA was termed the MULTIDEX-EMD study.

METHODS

Nineteen stakeholders (7 physicians, 4 pharmacists, 5 health authorities and health management experts, 1 psychologist, and 2 patient representatives) participated in this three-phase project. In phase A, an advisory board defined all of the criteria that could influence DME treatment decision-making. These criteria were then screened using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) (phase B). Next, a multinomial logit model was fitted by applying the backward elimination algorithm (relevant criteria: p value < 0.05). Finally, the results were discussed in a deliberative process (phase C).

RESULTS

Thirty-one criteria were initially defined (phase A) and grouped into 5 categories: efficacy/effectiveness, safety, organizational and economic impact, patient-reported outcomes, and other therapeutic features. The DCE results (phase B) showed that 10 criteria were relevant to the decision-making process for a 50- to 65-year-old DME patient: mean change in best corrected visual acuity (p value < 0.001), percentage of patients with an improvement of ≥ 15 letters (p value < 0.001), effect duration per administration (p value = 0.008), retinal detachment (p value < 0.001), endophthalmitis (p value = 0.012), myocardial infarction (p value < 0.001), intravitreal hemorrhage (p value = 0.021), annual treatment cost per patient (p value = 0.001), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p value = 0.004), and disability level (p value = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

From a multi-stakeholder perspective, the selection of an appropriate treatment for DME patients should guarantee patient safety and maximize the visual acuity improvement and treatment effect duration. It should also contribute to system sustainability by being affordable, it should have a positive impact on HRQoL, and it should prevent disability.

Determining the value contribution of emicizumab (Hemlibra®) for the prophylaxis of haemophilia A with inhibitors in Spain by multi-criteria decision analysis

Patients with moderate to severe haemophilia A are at a higher risk of developing FVIII inhibitors that require the use of more costly and less effective treatments. The objective of this study was to determine the value of emicizumab for the prophylaxis of haemophilia A with inhibitors compared to the current therapeutic alternatives, activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa through reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. The EVIDEM framework adapted to orphan drugs and weighted by a sample of 98 national and regional Spanish evaluators was used. Two structured evidence matrices were developed: emicizumab against activated prothrombin complex concentrate and emicizumab against recombinant factor VIIa. A multidisciplinary team of haemophilia experts rated each of the criteria. Mean and standard deviation were calculated by each criterion and discussed among all participants. Haemophilia A with inhibitors was perceived as a severe disease with high unmet needs. Emicizumab was rated with higher efficacy, therapeutic benefit and quality of life than comparators. When administered alone for the prevention of bleeding events, emicizumab had slightly better safety and tolerability profile than activated prothrombin complex concentrate and similar with recombinant factor VIIa. The inclusion of emicizumab in clinical practice guidelines was valued positively by the members of the panel. Overall, value of emicizumab was higher than activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa, mostly because of efficacy and therapeutic benefit in reducing treated haemorrhages. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis has proven to be a feasible method to determine the value contribution of comparative therapies in haemophilia.