Using multi-criteria decision analysis to appraise orphan drugs: a systematic review

Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Economic Evaluations of Orphan Drugs in Rare Diseases: An Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There are significant challenges when obtaining clinical and economic evidence for health technology assessments of rare diseases. Many of them have been highlighted in previous systematic reviews but they have not been summarised in a comprehensive manner. For all stakeholders working with rare diseases, it is important to be aware and understand these issues. The objective of this review is to identify the main challenges for the economic evaluation of orphan drugs in rare diseases.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic reviews of economic studies concerned with orphan and ultra-orphan drugs was conducted. Studies that were not systematic reviews, or on advanced therapeutic medicinal products, personalised medicines or other interventions that were not considered orphan drugs were excluded. The database searches included publications from 2010 to 2023, and were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library using filters for systematic reviews, and economic evaluations and models. These filters were combined with search terms for rare diseases and orphan drugs. A hand search supplemented the literature searches. The findings were reported by a compliant Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-two records were identified from the literature searches, of which 64 were duplicates, whereas five reviews were identified from the hand search. A total of 36 reviews were included after screening against inclusion/exclusion criteria, 35 from literature searches and one from hand searching. Of those studies 1, 27 and 8 were low, moderate and high quality, respectively. The reviews highlight the scarcity of evidence for health economic parameters, for example, clinical effectiveness, costs, quality of life and the natural history of disease. Health economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness and budget-impact analyses were scarce, and generally low-to-moderate quality. The causes were limited health economic parameters, together with publications bias, especially for cost-effectiveness analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlighted issues around a considerable paucity of evidence for economic evaluations and few cost-effectiveness analyses, supporting the notion that a paucity of evidence makes economic evaluations of rare diseases more challenging compared with more prevalent diseases. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for more sustainable approaches in economic evaluations of rare diseases.

Current scenario and challenges of clinical pharmacists to implement pharmaceutical care in DRG/DIP payment hospitals in China: a qualitative interview study

Purpose

The Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) or Diagnosis-Intervention Packet (DIP) payment system, now introduced in China, intends to streamline healthcare billing practices. However, its implications for clinical pharmacists, pivotal stakeholders in the healthcare system, remain inadequately explored. This study sought to assess the perceptions, challenges, and roles of clinical pharmacists in China following the introduction of the DRG or DIP payment system.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted among a sample of clinical pharmacists. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted, either online or face to face. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key insights and concerns related to their professional landscape under the DRG or DIP system.

Results

Clinical pharmacists exhibited variable awareness levels about the DRG or DIP system. Their roles have undergone shifts, creating a balance between traditional responsibilities and new obligations dictated by the DRG or DIP system. Professional development, particularly concerning health economics and DRG-based or DIP-based patient care, was highlighted as a key need. There were calls for policy support at both healthcare and national levels and a revised, holistic performance assessment system. The demand for more resources, be it in training platforms or personnel, was a recurrent theme.

Conclusion

The DRG or DIP system's introduction in China poses both opportunities and challenges for clinical pharmacists. Addressing awareness gaps, offering robust policy support, ensuring adequate resource allocation, and recognizing the evolving role of pharmacists are crucial for harmoniously integrating the DRG or DIP system into the Chinese healthcare paradigm.

Developing a Framework of Cost Elements of Socioeconomic Burden of Rare Disease: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rare diseases place a significant burden on patients, families, the healthcare system, and society. Evidence on the socioeconomic burden of rare disease is limited and mostly reflects diseases where treatments are available. We developed a framework encompassing recommended cost elements for studies of the socioeconomic burden of rare diseases.

METHODS

A scoping review, conducted in five databases (Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, MEDLINE, and APA PsycINFO), identified English language publications from 2000 to 2021 presenting frameworks developed for determining, measuring or valuing costs for rare or chronic diseases. Cost elements were extracted and used to develop a literature-informed framework. Structured feedback was gathered from experts in rare diseases, health economics/health services, and policy research to revise the framework.

RESULTS

Of 2990 records identified, eight papers were included and informed our preliminary framework; three focused on rare disease and five on chronic disease. Following expert input, we developed a framework consisting of nine cost categories (inpatient, outpatient, community, healthcare products/goods, productivity/education, travel/accommodation, government benefits, family impacts, and other), with several cost elements within each category. Our framework includes unique costs, added from the expert feedback, including genetic testing to inform treatment, use of private laboratories or out-of-country testing, family involvement in foundations and organizations, and advocacy costs for special access programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work is the first to identify a comprehensive list of cost elements for rare disease for use by researchers and policy makers to fully capture socioeconomic burden. Use of the framework will increase the quality and comparability of future studies. Future work should focus on measuring and valuing these costs through onset, diagnosis, and post-diagnosis.

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.

Criteria and Scoring Functions Used in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis and Value Frameworks for the Assessment of Rare Disease Therapies: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the economic value of health technologies is assessed with cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) analyses. However, the evaluation of rare disease therapies often considers novel value criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a promising tool in the assessment of value criteria that typically cannot be captured with traditional approaches.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this research was to investigate the criteria and scoring functions applied in value frameworks and MCDA tools relevant to the evaluation of rare disease therapies. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the domains and measurement of commonly referenced novel value criteria.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed covering the period from 2013 to 2019. MCDA or value framework articles and structured review papers on orphan-drug-specific MCDA articles were reviewed. Information sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and 26 other gray literature sources. A descriptive review of identified criteria and scoring functions was performed, with special focus on "novel" value criteria that are traditionally not considered in CE or BI analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 15 relevant value frameworks and MCDA tools were identified. These studies included a large number (n = 56) of individual value criteria. The most commonly included novel criteria were unmet medical need, severity of disease, and reduction in uncertainty. The identified scoring functions (measurement methods) for novel criteria were highly heterogeneous and tailored. Standardized scoring functions were not observed. Additionally, the studies did not provide their rationale for choosing a specific scoring function for a criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA is a promising tool to include novel value criteria into the health technology assessment of therapies for rare diseases. To support the development of a transparent and justified evaluation process, scoring functions should be further investigated.

Description of the use of multicriteria to support pricing and reimbursement decisions by European health technology assessment bodies

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity in drug access throughout Europe may be influenced by differences in drug-assessment strategies. The EUnetHTA's assessment core model (EUnetHTA-core) and the EVIDEM's multicriteria framework are reference methodologies in this context, the latter including a wider compromise between non-contextual and contextual criteria. Compliance of 37 European Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTAb) with EUnetHTA-core has been reported, but the use of EVIDEM by this HTAb is still unknown.

METHODS

To describe the uptake and use of multicriteria approaches to evaluate drug value by European HTAb using EVIDEM as reference framework, a multicriteria framework was obtained based on EVIDEM model. The criteria used for drug appraisal by HTAb was extracted from the EUnetHTA report, and completed through search of websites, publications and HTAb reports. Use of EVIDEM assessment model in 37 European HTAb has been described semi-quantitatively and summarized using an alignment heatmap.

RESULTS

Aligned, medium or misaligned profiles were seen for 24,3%, 51,4% and 24,3% of HTAb when matching to EVIDEM dimensions and criteria was considered. HTAb with explicit responsibilities in providing specific advice on reimbursement showed more aligned profiles on contextual and non-contextual dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

EUnetHTA's core model is limited in assessing medicines while EVIDEM's framework provides contextual dimension used by some HTAb in Europe that can be escalated to other agencies. Most of the 37 European HTAb have room to broaden their contextual assessment tools, especially when social and medical perception of need requires to be explicit to support payer's decision on reimbursement.

How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks

Background: Decision-makers have implemented a variety of value assessment frameworks (VAFs) for orphan drugs in European jurisdictions, which has contributed to variations in access for rare disease patients. This review provides an overview of the strengths and limitations of VAFs for the reimbursement of orphan drugs in Europe, and may serve as a guide for decision-makers.

Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Only publications in English were included. Publications known to the authors were added, as well as conference or research papers, or information published on the website of reimbursement and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Additionally, publications were included through snowballing or focused searches.

Results: Although a VAF that applies a standard economic evaluation treats both orphan drugs and non-orphan drugs equally, its focus on cost-effectiveness discards the impact of disease rarity on data uncertainty, which influences an accurate estimation of an orphan drug’s health benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A VAF that weighs QALYs or applies a variable incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) threshold, allows the inclusion of value factors beyond the QALY, although their methodologies are flawed. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) incorporates a flexible set of value factors and involves multiple stakeholders’ perspectives. Nevertheless, its successful implementation relies on decision-makers’ openness toward transparency and a pragmatic approach, while allowing the flexibility for continuous improvement.

Conclusion: The frameworks listed above each have multiple strengths and weaknesses. We advocate that decision-makers apply the concept of accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to justify their choice for a specific VAF for orphan drugs and to strive for maximum transparency concerning the decision-making process. Also, in order to manage uncertainty and feasibility of funding, decision-makers may consider using managed-entry agreements rather than implementing a separate VAF for orphan drugs.

Which Criteria are Considered and How are They Evaluated in Health Technology Assessments? A Review of Methodological Guidelines Used in Western and Asian Countries

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide an exhaustive description of criteria and methodological recommendations for evaluating them in health technology assessment (HTA) in Western and Asian countries.

METHODS

We conducted a system literature review of HTA-related guidelines by searching the websites of HTA agencies and related data sources. The guidelines, reports, or recommendations introducing the HTA evaluation methods, processes, decision-making frameworks, and criteria for priority setting were eligible to be included. The review was limited to guidelines from countries belonging to the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) and HTAsiaLink organisations and other countries with well-established available guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 52 guidelines from 24 countries were identified, including 13 countries from the EUnetHTA organisation, 9 countries from the HTAsiaLink organisation and 2 other countries (Canada and the USA). A strong consensus was observed among the HTA agencies on the core set of criteria including efficacy or effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, safety, and budget impact. More similarities were observed than differences in methodological recommendations for clinical and economic evaluations among the agencies.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial convergence is seen in the criteria included in the HTA process, as well as the methods to evaluate and quantify them. Further efforts are needed to verify whether the criteria identified from the guidelines are incorporated in real HTA decisions, and how they are assessed and weighted in practice.

Evaluating New Zealanders' Values for Drug Coverage Decision Making: Trade-Offs between Treatments for Rare and Common Conditions

BACKGROUND

New Zealand's near static healthcare budget limits access to expensive medications including those for rare conditions. As such, it is necessary to know the public's priority for values in the drug funding decision-making process.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to measure the relative societal importance of values of New Zealanders in informing drug funding decisions and to determine how New Zealanders trade off funding in various scenarios between common and rare diseases.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted between 17 April and 17 May, 2019 on a sample of 500 New Zealanders aged ≥ 18 years. Participants ranked 13 values using an analytical hierarchy process. Participants were then presented with different trade-off scenarios to measure their attitudes towards funding drugs for common and rare diseases.

RESULTS

The values ranked in the top five by most were potential effect on quality of life (71.8%), ability of the drug to work (57.6%), severity (57.6%), safety (57%), and potential to extend life (56%). Adherence and rarity held the lowest and second lowest ranking. Most believe that resources should be allocated towards drugs that have been proven to work and have the greatest health benefits. In trade-offs between access to an expensive drug therapy for a rare disease with uncertain benefits or receive a fixed cash payment, the overwhelming consensus was to receive the cash payment.

CONCLUSIONS

New Zealanders ultimately value drug-related factors (e.g. quality of life and efficacy) and disease-related factors (e.g. severity of disease and equity) the most but did not value disease rarity.

Selecting Image-Guided Surgical Technologies in Oncology: A Surgeon's Perspective

BACKGROUND

To improve surgical performance, image-guided (IG) technologies are increasingly introduced. Yet, it is unknown which oncological procedures yield most value from these technologies. This study aimed to select the most promising IG technology per oncologic indication.

METHODS

An Analytic Hierarchical Process was used to evaluate three IG technologies: navigation, optical imaging, and augmented reality, in five oncologic indications compared with usual care. Sixteen decision criteria were selected. The relative importance of the criteria and the expected performance of the technologies were evaluated among surgeons. The combination of these scores gives the expected value per technology.

RESULTS

On criteria level, sparing critical tissue (9%-18%) and reducing the risk of local recurrence (11%-27%) were most important. Navigation was preferred in three indications-removal of lymph nodes (42%), liver (47%), and rectal tumors (33%). In removing rectal tumors, optical imaging was equally preferred (34%). In removing breast and tongue tumors, no technology was clearly preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

In selecting IG technologies, especially optical and navigation technologies are expected to add value in addition to usual care. Further development of those technologies for the preferred indications seems valuable. Multi-attribute analysis showed to be useful in prioritization of conducting clinical studies and steer research and development initiatives.

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis to inform in resource allocation

Background: There is a perception held by payers that orphan products are expensive. As a result, the current health technology assessment systems might be too restrictive for orphan drugs, therefore potentially denying patients access to life-saving medicines. While price is important, it should be considered in relation to a broader range of disease-related product attributes that are not necessarily considered by many health technology assessment agencies. To overcome these challenges, multi-criteria decision analysis has been proposed as an alternative to evaluate technologies. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify the most frequently cited attributes in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in rare diseases. From the leading attributes identified, we developed a multi-criteria decision analysis framework with which to aggregate the orphan drug values. We subsequently reviewed and plotted the relationship between single attributes and the average annual treatment costs for 8 drugs used in the treatment of rare endocrine diseases. The annual treatment costs were based on UK list prices for the average daily dose per patient. Results: The five most frequently mentioned attributes in the literature were as follows: Disease severity, Unmet need (or availability of therapeutic alternatives), Comparative effectiveness or efficacy, Quality of evidence and Safety & tolerability. Results from the multi-criteria decision analysis framework indicate a wide range of average annual per-patients costs for drugs intended for the same diseases, and likewise for diseases with a similar level of Disease severity. Conclusions: Multi-criteria decision analysis may offer a viable alternative to support discussion in reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. The analyses can be used to inform investigations on the application of MCDAs in rare diseases.

Assessing the Preferences for Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Treatments for Rare Diseases

Background: Increasingly, multi-criteria decision analysis has gained importance as a method by which to assess the value of orphan drugs. However, very little attention has been given to the weight (relative preferences) of the individual criteria used in a framework. Aims: This study sought to gain an understanding of the preferential weights that should be allocated in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework for orphan drugs, from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Method: Using key MCDA criteria for orphan drugs reported in the literature, we developed an interactive web-based survey tool to capture preferences for different criteria from a general stakeholder sample who were requested to assign weights from a reimbursement perspective. Each criterion could be assigned a weight on a sliding scale from 0 to 100% as long as the sum of all the criteria was 100%. We subsequently used the interactive tool with an expert focus group, followed up with a group discussion regarding each criterion and their perspectives on the weight that each criterion should be allocated when assessing an orphan drug. The expert focus group participants were then able to adjust their weights, if the group discussion had changed their perspectives. Results: The interactive tool was completed by 120 general stakeholder sample from a wide range of countries and professional backgrounds and an expert focus group of ten members. The results showed the differences in perspectives on the importance of criteria. Both groups considered Treatment efficacy to be the most important criterion. The general stakeholder sample weighted Treatment safety at 12.03% compared to the expert focus group's average of 20%. The results also demonstrated the value of the group discussion, which provided additional insights into the perspectives on the importance of criteria in assessing orphan drugs. Conclusion: This study aimed to contribute to the important aspect of preferences for different criteria in MCDA. This study sheds light on the important aspect of the preferences of the different criteria. All respondents agreed on the relative importance of Treatment efficacy and Treatment safety, criteria that are captured in conventional cost-effectiveness studies, but they also expressed the view that in addition to those, several disease-related and drug-related criteria should be included in MCDA frameworks for assessing orphan drugs.

Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making

Background

Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively.

Results

We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: “Health-related balance of benefits and harms”; “Human and individual rights”; “Acceptability considerations”; “Societal considerations”; “Considerations of equity, equality and fairness”; “Cost and financial considerations”; and “Feasibility and health system considerations”. In addition, we identified an eight criterion “Evidence”.

Conclusion

This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.

International experiences in multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating orphan drugs: a scoping review

Introduction: Orphan diseases are low-prevalence conditions with chronically debilitating or life-threatening consequences. Their treatments are generally called orphan drugs (OD). Health-technology assessment processes have traditionally considered cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), when making reimbursement and pricing decisions for health-care plans. Valuing OD with standard CEA raises important issues due to uncertain evidence, inability to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds for reimbursement and high budget impact, among others. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) allows to overcome these issues and improve the technical and ethical quality of decisions regarding prioritization, coverage, and reimbursement of OD. Areas covered: A scoping review was conducted in order to characterize MCDA frameworks for assessing OD and implementation experiences. We reviewed electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, CINAHL, EconLit, Web of Science, LILACS, Google Scholar) key journals (Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases and Value in Health) and organization repositories. Expert opinion: The theoretical framework for MCDA considers areas related to characteristics of orphan diseases and their technologies' clinical and economic impact. Participation processes are critical in incorporating societal values in weighting different dimensions and constructing decision rules. Local implementation pilots considering different stakeholders are necessary in order to pinpoint specific barriers and opportunities.

Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut)

BACKGROUND

Orphan medicines show some characteristics that hinder the evaluation of their clinical added value. The often low level of evidence available for orphan drugs, together with a high budget impact and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio many times higher than drugs used for non-orphan diseases, represent challenges in their appraisal and effective access to clinical use. In order to explore how to handle these hurdles, the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) began an initiative on a multidimensional assessment of drugs value during the appraisal process. Reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) using analytical methods was chosen, since it may help to standardise and contextualize all the relevant data related with the drug that could contribute to a decision. The aim of the study was to determine whether the implementation of reflective MCDA methodology could support the decision-making process about orphan medicines in the context of CatSalut.

METHODS

The assessment and decision-making process for orphan drugs in the Programa d'Harmonització Farmacoterapeutica (PHF) of CatSalut was prioritized to test the implementation of the reflective MCDA both a qualitative and quantitatively. A staged approach was used with the following main steps: selection and structuration of quantitative criteria (Core Model) and qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool), framework scoring and assessment of three orphan drug case studies. This proof-of-concept would grant a continued refinement of the methodology and, if and when validated, its potential integration to other therapeutic areas of the PHF.

RESULTS

The final framework was composed by 10 quantitative criteria (Core Model) and 4 qualitative criteria (Contextual Tool) according to the PHF goals being the most important criteria "disease severity", "unmet need", "comparative effectiveness" and "comparative safety /tolerability". The matrix developed for the case studies served as a guide for the selection of the essential information that the decision-makers were expected to include in a framework. The reflective discussion was considered the most relevant phase of the approach to support inputs for health decision-making processes reflecting both drug value and place in therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that reflective MCDA methodology could be implemented to complement the decision-making process in CatSalut, as an aid to determine the clinical added value for orphan medicines. MCDA provided transparency and a structured discussion during the committee meetings, thus increasing transparency and predictability of the relevant items supporting the agreements adopted on orphan drugs access.

MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS AS A DECISION-SUPPORT TOOL FOR DRUG EVALUATION: A PILOT STUDY IN A PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE SETTING

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to develop and to assess a specific Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to evaluate new drugs in an hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee (P&TC) setting.

Methods:

A pilot criteria framework was developed based on the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking) framework, together with other relevant criteria, and assessed by a group of P&TC's members. The weighting of included criteria was done using a 5-point weighting technique. Two drugs were chosen by evaluation: an orphan-drug for Gaucher disease, and a nonorphan drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence matrices were developed, and value contribution of each drug was evaluated by P&TC's members. An agreed final framework was obtained through a discussion between the P&TC's members.

Results:

After criteria assessment, the pilot framework included eight quantitative criteria: “disease severity,” “unmet needs,” “comparative efficacy/effectiveness,” “comparative safety/tolerability,” “comparative patient-reported outcomes,” “comparative cost consequences-cost of treatment,” “comparative cost consequences-other medical costs,” and “quality of evidence”; and one contextual criterion: “opportunity costs and affordability.” The most valued criteria were: “comparative safety/tolerability,” “disease severity,” and “comparative efficacy/effectiveness.” When assessing the drugs most valued characteristics of the MCDA were the possibility that all team may contribute to drug assessment by means of scoring the matrices and the discussion to reach a consensus in drug positioning and value decision making.

Conclusions:

The reflective MCDA would integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria relevant for a P&TC setting, allowing reflective discussions based on the criteria weighting score.

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.