1
|
Suzumura EA, de Oliveira Ascef B, Maia FHDA, Bortoluzzi AFR, Domingues SM, Farias NS, Gabriel FC, Jahn B, Siebert U, de Soarez PC. Methodological guidelines and publications of benefit-risk assessment for health technology assessment: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e086603. [PMID: 38851235 PMCID: PMC11163601 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086603] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2024] [Accepted: 05/21/2024] [Indexed: 06/10/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To map the available methodological guidelines and documents for conducting and reporting benefit-risk assessment (BRA) during health technologies' life cycle; and to identify methodological guidelines for BRA that could serve as the basis for the development of a BRA guideline for the context of health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil. DESIGN Scoping review. METHODS Searches were conducted in three main sources up to March 2023: (1) electronic databases; (2) grey literature (48 HTA and regulatory organisations) and (3) manual search and contacting experts. We included methodological guidelines or publications presenting methods for conducting or reporting BRA of any type of health technologies in any context of the technology's life cycle. Selection process and data charting were conducted by independent reviewers. We provided a structured narrative synthesis of the findings. RESULTS From the 83 eligible documents, six were produced in the HTA context, 30 in the regulatory and 35 involved guidance for BRA throughout the technology's life cycle. We identified 129 methodological approaches for BRA in the documents. The most commonly referred to descriptive frameworks were the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk and Linked decisions and the Benefit-Risk Action Team. Multicriteria decision analysis was the most commonly cited quantitative framework. We also identified the most cited metric indices, estimation and utility survey techniques that could be used for BRA. CONCLUSIONS Methods for BRA in HTA are less established. The findings of this review, however, will support and inform the elaboration of the Brazilian methodological guideline on BRA for HTA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/69T3V.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica Aranha Suzumura
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Bruna de Oliveira Ascef
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | | | | | - Sidney Marcel Domingues
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | - Natalia Santos Farias
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
| | | | - Beate Jahn
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Uwe Siebert
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
- Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
- Center for Health Decision Science, Departments of Epidemiology and Health Policy & Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
- Program on Cardiovascular Research, Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Patricia Coelho de Soarez
- Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Su P, Zhi K, Xu H, Xiao J, Liu J, Wang Z, Liu Q, Yu Y, Dang H. The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review. Front Pharmacol 2024; 15:1245825. [PMID: 38720775 PMCID: PMC11076741 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1245825] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 04/10/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pengli Su
- Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Kai Zhi
- China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Huanhuan Xu
- Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jing Xiao
- School of Public Health, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jun Liu
- Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Zhong Wang
- Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Qiong Liu
- Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Yanan Yu
- Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Haixia Dang
- China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chisholm O, Sharry P, Phillips L. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Benefit-Risk Analysis by National Regulatory Authorities. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 8:820335. [PMID: 35096913 PMCID: PMC8790083 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.820335] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The approval process for pharmaceuticals has always included a consideration of the trade-offs between benefits and risks. Until recently, these trade-offs have been made in panel discussions without using a decision model to explicitly consider what these trade-offs might be. Recently, the EMA and the FDA have embraced Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a methodology for making approval decisions. MCDA offers an approach for improving the quality of these decisions and, in particular, by using quantitative and qualitative data in a structured decision model to make trade-offs in a logical, transparent and auditable way. This paper will review the recent use of MCDA by the FDA and EMA and recommend its wider adoption by other National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and the pharmaceutical industry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orin Chisholm
- PharmMed, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.,People and Decisions, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Patrick Sharry
- Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States.,The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Lawrence Phillips
- Decision Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|