Multi-indication Pharmacotherapeutic Multicriteria Decision Analytic Model for the Comparative Formulary Inclusion of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Qatar

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review

Objectives: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing attention in supporting drug risk-benefit assessment, pricing and reimbursement, as well as optimization of clinical interventions. The objective of this study was to systematically collect and categorize evaluation criteria and techniques of weighting and scoring of MCDA for drug value assessment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases to identify articles utilizing the MCDA frameworks for the evaluation of drug value. Evaluation criteria mentioned in the included studies were extracted and assigned to 5 dimensions including clinical, economic, innovative, societal and humanistic value. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the identified drug value evaluation criteria, as well as the weighting and scoring techniques employed. The more a criterion or technique were mentioned in articles, the more important we consider it. Results: Out of the 82 articles included, 111 unique criteria were identified to evaluate the value of drug. Among the 56 unique criteria (448 times) used to measure clinical value, the most frequently mentioned were "comparative safety/tolerability" (58 times), "comparative effectiveness/efficacy" (56 times), "comparative patient-perceived health/patient reported outcomes" (37 times), "disease severity" (34 times), and "unmet needs" (25 times). Regarding economic value measurement, out of the 20 unique criteria (124 times), the most frequently utilized criteria were "cost of intervention" (17 times), "comparative other medical costs" (16 times), and "comparative non-medical costs" (18 times). Out of the 10 criteria (18 times) for assessing innovative value, "a novel pharmacological mechanism" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (5 times). Among the 22 criteria (73 times) used to measure societal value, "system capacity and appropriate use of intervention" was the most frequently cited criterion (14 times). Out of the 3 criteria (15 times) utilized to measure humanistic value, "political/historical/cultural context" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (9 times). Furthermore, 11 scoring and 11 weighting techniques were found from various MCDA frameworks. "Swing weighting" and "a direct rating scale" were the most frequently used techniques in included articles. Conclusion: This study comprehensively presented the current evaluation dimensions, criteria, and techniques for scoring and weighting in drug-oriented MCDA articles. By highlighting the frequently cited evaluation criteria and techniques for scoring and weighting, this analysis will provide a foundation to reasonably select appropriate evaluation criteria and technique in constructing the MCDA framework that aligns with research objectives.

Applying value-based strategies to accelerate access to novel cancer medications: guidance from the Oncology Health Economics Expert Panel in Qatar (Q-OHEP)

BACKGROUND

In line with global trends, cancer incidence and mortality may have decreased for specific types of cancer in Qatar. However, the cancer-related burden on patients, healthcare systems, and the economy is expected to expand; thus, cancer remains a significant public healthcare issue in Qatar. Qatar's free access to cancer care represents a considerable economic burden. Ensuring the best utilization of financial resources in the healthcare sector is important to provide unified and fair access to cancer care for all patients. Experts from the Qatar Oncology Health Economics Expert Panel (Q-OHEP) aimed to establish a consistent and robust base for evaluating oncology/hematology medications; involve patients' insights to accelerate access to cutting-edge medications; increase the value of cancer care; and reach a consensus for using cost-effective strategies and efficient methodologies in cancer treatment.

METHODS

The Q-OHEP convened on 30 November 2021 for a 3-hour meeting to discuss cancer management, therapeutics, and health economics in Qatar, focusing on four domains: (1) regulatory, (2) procurement, (3) treatment, and (4) patients. Discussions, guided by a moderator, focused on a list of suggested open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Some of the salient recommendations included the development of a formal, fast-track, preliminary approval pathway for drugs needed by patients with severe disease or in critical condition; and encouraging and promoting the conduct of local clinical trials and real-world observational studies using existing registry data. The Q-OHEP also recommended implementing a forecast system using treatment center data based on the supply/demand of formulary oncology drugs to detect treatment patterns, estimate needs, expedite procurement, and prevent shortages/delays. Furthermore, the panel discussed the needs to define value concerning cancer treatment in Qatar, implement value-based models for reimbursement decision-making such as health technology assessment and multiple-criteria decision analysis, and promote patient education and involvement/feedback in developing and implementing cancer management guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Herein, we summarize the first Q-OHEP consensus recommendations, which aim to provide a solid basis for evaluating, registering, and approving new cancer medications to accelerate patient access to novel cancer treatments in Qatar; promote/facilitate the adoption and collection of patient-reported outcomes; and implement value-based cancer care in Qatar.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Statin Lipid-Lowering Drugs for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Although studies of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies (NSLLTs) have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits; whether these benefits provide good value has not been evaluated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. A systematic review was performed to include studies on the cost-effectiveness of NSLLTs in T2DM patients with/without cardiovascular disease (CVD). Thirteen studies were included; ezetimibe (n=8), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (n=4), fenofibrate (n=2), nicotinic acid (n=1), extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ER- ERN/LRPT) (n=1), and icosapent ethyl (n=1). Six studies considered ezetimibe+statin to be a cost-effective compared to statins monotherapy, three studies suggested that PCSK9 inhibitors+statins were not cost-effective compared to statin+ezetimibe. Fenofibrate was a cost-effective either as monotherapy or combined with a statin compared to statin or fenofibrate monotherapy. Nicotinic acid and ER- ERN/LRPT compared to statin monotherapy were also cost-effective. Icosapent ethyl using the solid-state relay was cost-effective compared to standard care but not using the wholesale acquisition cost.

Case studies for implementing MCDA for tender and purchasing decisions in hospitals in Indonesia and Thailand

Background

A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach has been suggested for helping purchasers in low- and middle-income countries in an evidence-based assessment of multi-source pharmaceuticals to mitigate potential adverse consequences of price-based decisions on patient access to effective medicines. Six workshops for developing MCDA-instruments for purchasing were conducted in Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and Kuwait in 2017–2020. In Indonesia and Thailand, two pilot-initiatives aimed to implement the instruments for hospital drug purchasing decisions.

Objective

By analysing and comparing the experiences and progress from the MCDA-workshops and the two case-examples for hospital implementation in Indonesia and Thailand, we aim to gain insights, which will support future implementation.

Methods

The selection of criteria and their average weight were compared quantitatively across the MCDA-instruments developed in all four countries and settings. Implementation experiences from two case-examples were studied, which included (1) testing the instrument across a variety of drugs in seven hospitals in Thailand and (2) implementation in one specialty hospital in Indonesia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via web-conferences with four diverse stakeholders in the pilot implementation projects in Thailand and Indonesia. The open responses were evaluated through qualitative content analysis and synthesis using grounded theory coding.

Results

Drivers for implementation were making ‘better’ decisions, achieving transparency and a rational selection process, reducing drug shortages, and assuring consistent quality. Challenges were seen on the technical level (definition or of criteria, scoring methods, access to data) or change-related challenges (resistance, perception of increased workload, lack of competencies or capabilities, lack of resources). The comparison of the MCDA instruments revealed high similarity, but also clear need for local adaptations in each specific case.

Conclusion

A set a of measures targeting challenges related to utility, methodology, data requirements, capacity building and training as well as the broader societal impact can help to overcome challenges in the implementation. Careful planning of implementation and organizational change is recommended for ensuring commitment and fit to local context and culture. Designing a collaborative change program for each application of MCDA-based purchasing will enable healthcare stakeholders to maximally benefit in terms of quality and effectiveness of care and access for patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-021-00333-8.

Recommendation for a Pilot MCDA Tool to Support the Value-Based Purchasing of Generic Medicines in the UAE

Introduction: In recent periods the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has strengthened economic measures in its pharmaceutical policy by promoting local manufacturing and facilitating the use of generic medicines. International examples indicate the importance of quality control elements in the implementation of cost containment policies. Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used in health care to facilitate health care decision based on multiple objectives. Our objective was to develop a pilot MCDA tool for repeated use to support the value-based purchasing of generic medicines in the UAE.

Methods: An international evidence framework was adapted to UAE in a multistakeholder workshop organized by Dubai Health Authority. After validating the relevance of nine criteria in the local jurisdiction, participants decided the ranking and weight of each criterion by anonymous voting.

Results: The top four criteria focused on quality elements starting with real-world clinical or economic outcomes (with 19.8% weight), followed by the quality assurance of manufacturing (17.3%), then evidence on the equivalence with the original product (14.8%), and drug formulation and stability (12.3%). The pharmaceutical acquisition cost criteria ranked fifth with 9.4% weight. The bottom four criteria, including reliability of drug supply, macroeconomic benefit, pharmacovigilance and added value services related to the product had similar weights in the range of 5.5–7.7%.

Conclusion: Policy-makers in Dubai put high emphasis of value-based health care by incentivizing manufacturers of off-patent pharmaceuticals to generate additional scientific evidence compared to the mandatory minimum and acknowledging efforts to improve quality standards. The MCDA tool is considered suitable to improve the transparency and consistency of decision making in UAE for off-patent pharmaceuticals, and subsequently for other health technologies.

Health Economic Publications From the Middle East and North Africa Region: A Scoping Review of the Volume and Methods of Research

Introduction

We reviewed the scope of countries, diseases, technologies, and methods involved in the health economic evaluations published in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

Methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed. A PubMed search was conducted up to December 15, 2019. English language full-text articles were included if they reported original research on humans; involved the local population from Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, or Yemen; reported costs; and involved a full or partial health economic analysis comparing alternative health technologies. Data on publication year, country of origin, disease area according to ICD-10, type of health technology, and applied methods were extracted.

Results

From 105 eligible articles, 57.1% were published between 2015 and 2019. Egypt (30.5%) and Saudi Arabia (27.6%) were the most frequently involved countries. Infectious diseases were most often studied (27.6%). The assessed technology was a system (eg, infection control, screening, coverage/access, hospital management, or healthcare delivery program) in 41.9% of studies. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most frequent method (29.5%) and was growing rapidly. Health system perspective was adopted in 52.4% of studies, whereas societal perspective was scarce (8.6%). The majority of studies (46.7%) were published in Scimago Q1 journals. Over half of the studies (54.2%) did not report or did not have a funding source.

Conclusions

From 2015, health economic analysis became more frequent in the MENA region, providing input to value-based health policy and financing. For further growth, in addition to the development of the institutional background, valid and more standardized local cost and outcome data should be available.

Evaluations of Morphine and Fentanyl for Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Respiratory Disorders in Intensive Care: A Systematic Review of Methodological Trends and Reporting Quality

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory disorders may require sedatives, such as opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To define methodological trends, gaps, and the reporting quality of the comparative clinical and economic evaluations of fentanyl and morphine in ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of the MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, and EconLit databases, comparing studies in the management of ventilated patients with respiratory disorders in the intensive care unit using either fentanyl or morphine, or both. We assessed the methodological aspects of the literature characteristics and trends of, for example, modeling, data sources, cost calculation, and data analysis, appraising the quality of reporting via the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.

RESULTS

Among 1327 articles, 33 (comprising 22 in adults, 8 in neonates, and 3 in pediatrics) met the inclusion criteria. No head-to-head morphine versus fentanyl evaluations explicitly confined to subjects with respiratory conditions were undertaken. Studies relied on various scales to measure the sedation level as a primary study outcome, limiting the comparability of study conclusions. Seven articles of adults were identified to be economic studies from the hospital perspective. On the basis of different endpoints, the same sedation regimen performed differently in various studies. None of the randomized controlled trials, observational cohorts, or pharmacoeconomics studies met most of the assessed reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified poor reporting quality and high heterogeneity of methods used, potentially limiting the degree to which studies could be interpreted, decisions could be influenced, and findings could be generalized.

Pharmacoeconomics Evaluations of Oral Anticancer Agents: Systematic Review of Characteristics, Methodological Trends, and Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVES

To review literature characteristics, describe methodological trends, and assess the reporting quality of the economic evaluations of oral anticancer drugs (OACDs).

METHODS

The review included comparative economic evaluations of OACDs. The search was conducted via PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Economic Evaluation Database, and studies till December 2017 were included. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, literature inclusion and data extraction were performed in duplicate by separate investigators. Outcome measures were literature characteristics, gaps and methodological trends, and reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Data were summarized on the basis of methodological themes of interest. Descriptive statistics and tabulations were used for result presentation.

RESULTS

Out of 241 found articles, 21 were included. There is a recent increasing interest in the economics of OACDs, whereby the cost per quality-adjusted life-year, via cost-utility analysis, is the most used for decision making. Most of the studies were from the payer perspective, and the primary sources of data were clinical trials, expert panels, and medical charts. The dominance status (higher effect, lower cost) was a commonly reported outcome. Decision-analytic modeling was used in most of the studies, mostly including Markov modeling. Studies were highly heterogeneous in methodological aspects, and the included studies did not meet most of the reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

High heterogeneity in methods in studies may limit the robustness and transferability of results, potentially misleading decision makers toward wrong decisions on OACDs. The transferability and generalizability of results are further limited by a "less than ideal" adherence to current reporting standards.

Evaluating quantity and quality of literature focusing on health economics and pharmacoeconomics in Gulf Cooperation Council countries

BACKGROUND

The importance of pharmacoeconomics and health economics has been augmented. It has the potential to provide evidence to aid in optimal decision-making in the funding of cost-effective medicines and services in Gulf Cooperation Council countries (G.C.C).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality and quantity of health economic researches published until the end of 2017 in G.C.C. and to identify the factors that affect the quality of studies.

METHOD

Studies were included according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quantity was recorded, and the quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies were included. The mean (SD) quality score of all studies was 57.83 (25.05), and a high number of reviewed studies (47%) were evaluated as either poor or extremely poor quality. The factors that affect the quality of studies with statistical significance were, the type and method of economic evaluation, the economic outcome was the objective of the research, author`s background, the perspective of the study, health intervention and source of funding.

CONCLUSION

The use of economic evaluation studies in G.C.C was limited. Different factors that affect the quality of articles such as performing a full economic evaluation and choosing societal perspective were identified. Strategies to improve the quality of future studies were recommended.

How can multi criteria decision analysis support value assessment of pharmaceuticals? - Findings from a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

As budget constraints become more and more visible, there is growing recognition for greater transparency and greater stakeholders' engagement in the pharmaceuticals' pric-ing&reimbursement (P&R) decision making. New frameworks of drugs' value assessments are searched for. Among them, the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) receives more and more attention. In 2014, ISPOR established Task Force to provide methodological recommendations for MCDA utilization in the health care decision making. Still, there is not so much knowledge about the real life experience with MCDA's adaptation to the P&R processes.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic literature review was performed to understand the rationale for MCDA adaptation, methodology used as well as its impact on P&R outcomes.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

In total 102 hits were found through the search of databases, out of which 18 publications were selected. Although limited in scope, the review highlighted how MCDA can im-prove the decision making processes not only regarding pricing & reimbursement but also contribute to the the risk benefit assessment as well as optimization of treatment outcomes. Still none of re-viewed studies did report how MCDA results actually impacted the real life settings.

Method Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Pediatric Drugs Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Application to Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Establishing a comprehensive clinical evaluation system is critical in enacting national drug policy and promoting rational drug use. In China, the 'Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation System for Pediatric Drugs' (CCES-P) project, which aims to compare drugs based on clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness to help decision makers, was recently proposed; therefore, a systematic and objective method is required to guide the process.

METHODS

An evidence-based multi-criteria decision analysis model that involved an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was developed, consisting of nine steps: (1) select the drugs to be reviewed; (2) establish the evaluation criterion system; (3) determine the criterion weight based on the AHP; (4) construct the evidence body for each drug under evaluation; (5) select comparative measures and calculate the original utility score; (6) place a common utility scale and calculate the standardized utility score; (7) calculate the comprehensive utility score; (8) rank the drugs; and (9) perform a sensitivity analysis. The model was applied to the evaluation of three different inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) used for asthma management in children (a total of 16 drugs with different dosage forms and strengths or different manufacturers).

RESULTS

By applying the drug analysis model, the 16 ICSs under review were successfully scored and evaluated. Budesonide suspension for inhalation (drug ID number: 7) ranked the highest, with comprehensive utility score of 80.23, followed by fluticasone propionate inhaled aerosol (drug ID number: 16), with a score of 79.59, and budesonide inhalation powder (drug ID number: 6), with a score of 78.98. In the sensitivity analysis, the ranking of the top five and lowest five drugs remains unchanged, suggesting this model is generally robust.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence-based drug evaluation model based on AHP was successfully developed. The model incorporates sufficient utility and flexibility for aiding the decision-making process, and can be a useful tool for the CCES-P.