Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Approach to Elicit Stakeholders' Preferences in Italy: The Case of Obinutuzumab for Rituximab-Refractory Indolent Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL)

A novel MCGDM technique based on correlation coefficients under probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment and its application in clinical comprehensive evaluation of orphan drugs

Probabilistic hesitant fuzzy sets (PHFSs) are superior to hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs) in avoiding the problem of preference information loss among decision makers (DMs). Owing to this benefit, PHFSs have been extensively investigated. In probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environments, the correlation coefficients have become a focal point of research. As research progresses, we discovered that there are still a few unresolved issues concerning the correlation coefficients of PHFSs. To overcome the limitations of existing correlation coefficients for PHFSs, we propose new correlation coefficients in this study. In addition, we present a multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) method under unknown weights based on the newly proposed correlation coefficients. In addition, considering the limitations of DMs' propensity to use language variables for expression in the evaluation process, we propose a method for transforming the evaluation information of the DMs' linguistic variables into probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information in the newly proposed MCGDM method. To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed correlation coefficients and MCGDM method, we applied them to a comprehensive clinical evaluation of orphan drugs. Finally, the reliability, feasibility and efficacy of the newly proposed correlation coefficients and MCGDM method were validated.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Treatment Preference for Alzheimer's Disease: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis with Caregivers, Neurologists, and Payors

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder associated with a high burden of illness. New therapies under development include agents that target amyloid-beta (Aβ), a key component in AD pathogenesis. Understanding the decision-making process for new AD drugs would help determine if such therapies should be adopted by society. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to three key stakeholder groups to assess treatment alternatives for AD based on a multitude of decision trade-offs covering main components of care.

METHODS

AD caregivers (n = 117), neurologists (n = 90), and payors (n = 90) from the USA received an online survey. The decision problem was broken down into four decision criterion and 12 subcriteria for two treatment scenarios: an Aβ-targeted therapy vs. the standard of care (SOC). Respondents were asked to indicate how much they preferred one option over another on a scale from 1 (equal preference) to 9 (high preference) based on each criterion and subcriterion. The decision criteria and subcriteria were weighted and presented as partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference for that decision-making component.

RESULTS

Caregivers and payors applied the highest value to need for intervention (mean pUS = 0.303 and 0.259) and clinical outcomes (mean pUS = 0.286 and 0.377). In contrast, neurologists placed the highest value on clinical outcomes and types of benefits (mean pUS = 0.436 and 0.248). When decision subcriteria were examined, efficacy (mean pUS = 0.115, 0.219, and 0.166) and the type of patient benefits (mean pUS = 0.135, 0.178, and 0.126) were among the most valued by caregivers, neurologists, and payors.

CONCLUSION

All groups placed the highest value on drug efficacy and types of benefit derived by patients. In contrast, cost implications were among the least important aspects in their decision-making.

Assessing the value contribution of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a multidisciplinary reflective multi-criteria decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was proposed to surmount arbitrary clinical decisions in the field of biological therapies for psoriatic patients. At the same time, MCDA may further highlight the potential of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, compared to placebo, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and even ixekizumab and risankizumab.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The EVIDEM framework was adapted to reflect relevant criteria for the assessment. Estimated values were obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 12 experts. Consistency and replicability were evaluated through an alternative weighting method and a re-test.

RESULTS

Bimekizumab was assessed by the committee as an intervention with a positive value contribution for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in comparison to any of the alternatives. The drug provides a substantial therapeutical benefits and improves the health results reported by the patients, as it combines a higher level of clearance, rapidity, and persistence with a similar safety and tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, bimekizumab was evaluated as a drug with a high added value for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis when compared to six different alternatives.

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.

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review

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.

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 New Decision Model Approach for Health Technology Assessment and A Case Study for Dialysis Alternatives in Turkey

Background: This paper presents a generic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) decision-making, which can be applied to a wide range of HTA studies, regardless of the healthcare technology type under consideration. Methods: The HTA Core Model^® of EUnetHTA was chosen as a basis for the development of the MCDA model because of its common acceptance among European Union countries. Validation of MCDA4HTA was carried out by an application with the HTA study group of the Turkish Ministry of Health. The commitment of the decision-making group is completed via an online application of 10 different questionnaires. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to determine the weights. Scores of the criteria in MCDA4HTA are gathered directly from the HTA report. The performance matrix in this application is run with fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), fuzzy Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR), and goal programming MCDA techniques. Results: Results for fuzzy VIKOR, fuzzy TOPSIS, and goal programming are 0.018, 0.309, and 0.191 for peritoneal dialysis and 0.978, 0.677, and 0.327 for hemodialysis, respectively. Conclusions: Peritoneal dialysis is found to be the best choice under the given circumstances, despite its higher costs to society. As an integrated decision-making model for HTA, MCDA4HTA supports both evidence-based decision policy and the transparent commitment of multi-disciplinary stakeholders.

Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques

This paper presented a new approach to the calculation of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The health status utility values were calculated through a hybrid methodology. We combined the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), the AHP with a D-number extended fuzzy preference relation (D-AHP), the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP), and the technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) to obtain individual and aggregated utility values. The preference data were elicited using a sample of individuals from a Colombian university. In all tested methods, the ordinal preferences were consistent, and the weights were compared using the Euclidean distance criterion (EDC). We identified F-AHP-TOPSIS as the optimal method; its benefits were associated with modeling the response options of the EQ-5D in linguistic terms, it gave the best approximation to the initial preferences according to EDC, and it could be used as an alternative to the known prioritization method. This hybrid methodology was particularly useful in certain medical decisions concerned with understanding how a specific person values his or her current health or possible health outcomes from different interventions in small population samples and studies carried out in low- and middle-low-income countries.

A Review of Rare Disease Policies and Orphan Drug Reimbursement Systems in 12 Eurasian Countries

Background: Despite international initiatives on collaboration within the field of rare diseases, patient access to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) and healthcare services differ greatly between countries. This study aimed to create a comprehensive and in-depth overview of rare diseases policies and reimbursement of OMPs in a selection of 12 countries in the Western Eurasian region: Armenia, France, Germany, Kazakhstan, Latvia, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed and an analysis of publicly available legislative and rare disease health policy data was undertaken in five focus areas: rare disease definition, newborn screening, registries, national plans, access to/reimbursement of OMPs. Results: Screening programs are broadly implemented but the number of screened diseases differs significantly (2-35 diseases), either between EU and non-EU countries, between EU member states and sometimes even within a single country. In most countries rare disease registries are operating with regional, national, European or worldwide coverage. The number of rare disease registries is growing, as a result of the National Plans (EU) and increased international scientific cooperation. France, Russia, and Poland have a centrally acting registry. National plans are present in all EU countries but implementation varies and is ongoing. The number of reimbursed OMPs in the selected countries ranges from nearly all available OMPs in the Netherlands, Germany, and France to zero in Armenia. Reimbursement rules differ considerably regionally and a trend is observed of reimbursement conditions getting stricter for expensive (orphan) drugs. Discussion: Inequality in patient access to new OMPs still exists due to variations in national policies, healthcare budgets, health insurance, and reimbursement systems. The observed differences are challenging for rare disease patients, health authorities and manufacturers alike. Progress can be seen, however, and international cooperation and harmonization is slowly but steadily expanding in the rare disease arena.

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.

Determining the value contribution of selexipag for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in Spain using reflective multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) is a chronic rare disease that can lead to serious cardiovascular problems and death. Additional treatments that increase effectiveness, that are safe and with a convenient administration that improve outcomes and quality of life for patients are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the value contribution of the new, oral prostacyclin receptor agonist, selexipag, for PAH treatment in Spain through reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was performed to develop an evidence matrix, composed of twelve quantitative criteria and four contextual criteria, based on an EVIDEM MCDA framework adapted to orphan drugs evaluation by the Spanish region of Catalonia. Quantitative performance scores, qualitative impact of contextual criteria and individual reflections from stakeholders were collected for each MCDA framework criteria. The value contribution of selexipag to PAH treatment compared to inhaled iloprost was calculated.

RESULTS

Oral selexipag for PAH treatment was considered as a treatment which adds value, compared to iloprost, in the following MCDA quantitative criteria: comparative efficacy, patient reported outcomes, preventive benefit, therapeutic benefit, other medical costs and other non-medical costs, without significant differences in safety profile but with a higher acquisition cost than inhaled iloprost.

CONCLUSIONS

Selexipag was considered to provide value to PAH treatment. It was perceived as an intervention indicated for a severe rare disease with high unmet needs, supported by high quality clinical evidence. When compared to inhaled iloprost, oral selexipag has demonstrated improvements in efficacy and patient reported outcomes, with a similar safety profile and some additional costs. Reflective MCDA provided a standardised, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria relating to the overall value contribution of selexipag to PAH treatment facilitating decision-making.

The European challenges of funding orphan medicinal products

Background

Funding of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is an increasing challenge in the European Union (EU).

Objectives

To identify the different methods for public funding of OMPs in order to map the availability for rare disease patients, as well as to compare the public expenditures on OMPs in 8 EU member states.

Methods

Information on the reimbursement status of 83 OMPs was collected in 8 countries by distinguishing standard and special reimbursements. In two consecutive years, the total public expenditures on OMPs were calculated by using annual EUR exchange rates. Annual total public expenditures were calculated per capita, and as a proportion of GDP, total public pharmaceutical and healthcare budgets. Differences between countries were compared by calculating the deviations from the average spending of countries.

Results

In 2015 29.4–92.8% of the 83 OMPs were available with any kind of public reimbursement in participant countries including special reimbursement on an individual basis. In Austria, Belgium and France more OMPs were accessible for patients with public reimbursement than in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Standard reimbursement through retail pharmacies and/or hospitals was applied from 0 to 41% of OMPs. The average annual total public expenditure ranged between 1.4–23.5 €/capita in 2013 and 2014. Higher income countries spent more OMPs in absolute terms. Participant countries spent 0.018–0.066% of their GDPs on funding OMPs. Average expenditures on OMPs were ranged between 2.25–6.51% of the public pharmaceutical budget, and 0.44–0.96% of public healthcare expenditures.

Conclusions

Standard and special reimbursement techniques play different roles in participant countries. The number of accessible OMPs indicated an equity gap between Eastern and Western Europe. The spending on OMPs as a proportion of GDP, public pharmaceutical and healthcare expenditure was not higher in lower income countries, which indicates substantial differences in patient access to OMPs in favour of higher-income countries. Equity in access for patients with rare diseases is an important policy objective in each member state of the EU; however, equity in access should be harmonized at the European level.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0927-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Models in Health Technology Assessment of Orphan Drugs-a Systematic Literature Review. Next Steps in Methodology Development?

Background: Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a decision-making tool that can take into account multidimensional factors and enables comparison of (medical) technologies by combining individual criteria into one overall appraisal. The MCDA approach has slowly gained traction within Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and its elements are gradually being incorporated into HTA across Europe. Several groups of scientists have proposed MCDA approaches targeted toward orphan drugs and rare diseases by including criteria specific to rare diseases. The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge and latest developments in the field of MCDA in HTA for orphan drugs, to review existing models, their design characteristics, as well as to identify opportunities for further model improvement. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2018 using four databases: MEDLINE (Pubmed), EBSCO HOST, EMBASE, and Web of science to find publications related to use of MCDA in the rare disease field (keywords: MCDA/orphan drug/rare disease and synonyms). Identified MCDA models were analyzed, e.g., structure, criteria, scoring, and weighting methodology. Results: Two hundred and eleven publications were identified, of which 29 were included after removal of duplicates. 9 authors developed own MCDA models, 7 of which based on literature reviews intended to identify the most important and relevant decision criteria in the model. In 13 publications (8 models) weights were assigned to criteria based on stakeholder input. The most commonly chosen criteria for creation of the MCDA models were: comparative effectiveness/efficacy, the need for intervention, and disease severity. Some models have overlapping criteria, especially in the treatment cost and effectiveness areas. Conclusions: A range of MCDA models for HTA have been developed, each with a slightly different approach, focus, and complexity, including several that specifically target rare diseases and orphan drug appraisal. Models have slowly progressed over the years based on pilots, stakeholder input, sharing experiences and scientific publications. However, full consensus on model structure, criteria selection and weighting is still lacking. A simplification of the MCDA model approach may increase its acceptance. A multi-stakeholder discussion on fundamental design and implementation strategies for MCDA models would be beneficial to this end.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a tool that systematically considers multiple factors relevant to health decision-making. The aim of this study was to use an MCDA to assess the value of dupilumab for severe atopic dermatitis compared with secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Spain.

METHOD

Following the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcision Making) methodology, the estimated value of both interventions was obtained by means of an additive linear model that combined the individual weighting (between 1 and 5) of each criterion with the individual scoring of each intervention in each criterion. Dupilumab was evaluated against placebo, while secukinumab was evaluated against placebo, etanercept and ustekinumab. A retest was performed to assess the reproducibility of weights, scores and value estimates.

RESULTS

The overall MCDA value estimate for dupilumab versus placebo was 0.51 ± 0.14. This value was higher than those obtained for secukinumab: 0.48 ± 0.15 versus placebo, 0.45 ± 0.15 versus etanercept and 0.39 ± 0.18 versus ustekinumab. The highest-value contribution was reported by the patients' group, followed by the clinical professionals and the decision makers. A fundamental element that explained the difference in the scoring between pathologies was the availability of therapeutic alternatives. The retest confirmed the consistency and replicability of the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Under this methodology, and assuming similar economic costs per patient for both treatments, the results indicated that the overall value estimated of dupilumab for severe atopic dermatitis was similar to, or slightly higher than, that of secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.