Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada

The value of the reflective discussion in decision-making using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): an example of determining the value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of the Epstein Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+ PTLD)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of the reflective multidisciplinary discussion in determining the value contribution of innovative drugs through the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This methodology considers all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a global, transparent, and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The determination of value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of Epstein-Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+ PTLD) compared to salvage therapy was used as an example.

RESULTS

Tabelecleucel obtained a value contribution score of 0.63 and increased to 0.75 after the reflective discussion. EBV+ PTLD was considered a life-threatening disease (5.0 ± 0.0), with a significant unmet need for an approved treatment (5.0 ± 0.0). Tabelecleucel was perceived as bringing improvements in terms of efficacy (4.2 ± 0.8) and safety (3.8 ± 0.8) compared to the salvage therapy. Most experts considered that the high efficacy and safety results could represent an improvement in the quality of life of patients (2.3 ± 1.2) along with savings in medical costs (2.3 ± 2.0) and non-medical costs (2.7 ± 1.6) compared to the salvage therapy. However, others emphasized the need of more evidence to confirm these improvements and savings over time. Tabelecleucel was regarded as potentially modifying the clinical course of the disease (4.3 ± 0.8) and supported by high-quality evidence (3.2 ± 0.4). All contextual criteria were valued highly positively for tabelecleucel. "Safety/Tolerability" and "Other medical costs" were the criteria that experienced the highest change in the re-test conducted after the reflective discussion. The reflective discussion allowed resolving doubts or misinterpretations of the experts, so the re-test obtained more accurate and consistent results of the value contribution of tabelecleucel.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that the MCDA methodology is a useful tool for decision-making on innovative treatments for the management of rare diseases. It also highlights the importance of reflective multidisciplinary discussion for its ability to resolve doubts or misinterpretations of experts, subsequently allowing to obtain more consistent and reliable results on the value contribution of the drug, being potentially more positive.

Development of a Prioritization Framework to Aid Healthcare Funding Decision Making in Health Technology Assessment in Australia: Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study develops a prioritization framework to aid healthcare funding decision making in health technology assessment (HTA) in Australia using a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach.

METHODS

MCDA frameworks for HTAs were reviewed through literature survey to identify the initial criteria and levels within each criterion. Key stakeholders and experts were consulted to confirm these criteria and levels. A conjoint analysis using 1000Minds was undertaken with policy makers from the Department of Health to establish ranking criteria and weighting scores. Monte Carlo simulations were used to examine the sensitivity of findings to factors affecting the ranking and weighting scores. The MCDA was then applied to 6 examples of chronic care models or technologies projects to demonstrate the performance of this approach.

RESULTS

Five criteria (clinical efficacy/effectiveness, safety and tolerability, severity of the condition, quality/uncertainty, and direct impact on healthcare costs) were consistently ranked highest by healthcare decision makers. Among the criteria, patient-level health outcomes were considered the most important, followed by social and ethical values. The analyses were robust to inform the uncertainty in the parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed an MCDA tool that effectively integrates key priorities for HTA reviews, reflecting the values and preferences of healthcare stakeholders in Australia. Although this tool aims to align the assessment process more closely with health benefits, it also highlights the importance of considering other criteria.

Predicting the number of IT staff needed in hospitals of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences based on modeling in 2023: A descriptive-analytical study

Background and Aims

Considering the increasing use of information technology (IT) and the need of the implementation of related projects, the lack of IT specialists in the health system is one of the major challenges that require planning and foreseeing. This study was conducted with the aim of predicting the number of required IT personnel in hospitals of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences based on the modeling of identified and weighed influential factors in 2023.

Method

First, Delphi method and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) using the Expository Posthaste Effective Resemblant Tool (ExPERT) were conducted to identify and weigh the components that affect IT staff's workload in hospitals. Then, the model for predicting the required number of IT personnel for the involved hospitals was developed. In all stages, the obtained information and results were checked and confirmed using experts' opinions in Focus Group Discussions.

Results

Twenty-one hospitals (57%) out of 37 hospitals are facing a shortage of IT personnel. This varies from 0.5 to 1.6 personnel in different hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (35%) were reported to have adequate IT staffing and three hospitals (8%) had excess IT staffing.

Conclusion

This study provided a predictive model for required IT staff in hospitals using MCDM through ExPERT which can be used in cases where the use of workload-based methods such as Workload Indicators of Staffing Need is complex or time-consuming.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Methodologies for Evaluating the Usability of Rehabilitation Technologies Aimed at Supporting Shared Decision-Making: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?

METHODS

This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.

RESULTS

A total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.

Development of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Rating Tool to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Questions for the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

The Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration developed an MCDA rating tool to assess and prioritize potential post-market real-world evidence (RWE) questions/uncertainties emerging from public drug funding decisions in Canada. In collaboration with a group of multidisciplinary stakeholders from across Canada, the rating tool was developed following a three-step process: (1) selection of criteria to assess the importance and feasibility of an RWE question; (2) development of rating scales, application of weights and calculating aggregate scores; and (3) validation testing. An initial MCDA rating tool was developed, composed of seven criteria, divided into two groups. Group A criteria assess the importance of an RWE question by examining the (1) drug’s perceived clinical benefit, (2) magnitude of uncertainty identified, and (3) relevance of the uncertainty to decision-makers. Group B criteria assess the feasibility of conducting an RWE analysis including the (1) feasibility of identifying a comparator, (2) ability to identify cases, (3) availability of comprehensive data, and (4) availability of necessary expertise and methodology. Future directions include partnering with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health’s Provincial Advisory Group for further tool refinement and to gain insight into incorporating the tool into drug funding deliberations.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The contribution of fenfluramine to the treatment of Dravet syndrome in Spain through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dravet Syndrome (DS) is a severe, developmental epileptic encephalopathy (DEE) that begins in infancy and is characterized by pharmaco-resistant epilepsy and neurodevelopmental delay. Despite available antiseizure medications (ASMs), there is a need for new therapeutic options with greater efficacy in reducing seizure frequency and with adequate safety and tolerability profiles. Fenfluramine is a new ASM for the treatment of seizures associated with DS as add-on therapy to other ASMs for patients aged 2 years and older. Fenfluramine decreases seizure frequency, prolongs periods of seizure freedom potentially helping to reduce risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and improves patient cognitive abilities positively impacting on patients' Quality of Life (QoL). Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of fenfluramine for the treatment of DS in Spain using MCDA.

METHOD

A literature review was performed to populate an adapted a MCDA framework for orphan-drug evaluation in Spain. A panel of ten Spanish experts, including neurologists, hospital pharmacists, patient representatives and decision-makers, scored four comparative evidence matrices. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology.

RESULTS

Dravet syndrome is considered a severe, rare disease with significant unmet needs. Fenfluramine is perceived to have a higher efficacy profile than all available alternatives, with a better safety profile than stiripentol and topiramate and to provide improved QoL versus studied alternatives. Fenfluramine results in lower other medical costs in comparison with stiripentol and clobazam. Participants perceived that fenfluramine could lead to indirect costs savings compared to available alternatives due to its efficacy in controlling seizures. Overall, fenfluramine's therapeutic impact on patients with DS is considered high and supported by high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reflective MCDA, fenfluramine is considered to add greater benefit in terms of efficacy, safety and QoL when compared with available ASMs.

Knowledge Mapping of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis

Objective

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a useful tool in complex decision-making situations, and has been used in medical fields to evaluate treatment options and drug selection. This study aims to provide valuable insights into MCDA in healthcare through examining the research focus of existing studies, major fields, major applications, most productive authors and countries, and most common journals in the domain.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the publication related to MCDA in healthcare from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database on 14 July 2021. Three bibliometric software (VOSviewer, R-bibliometrix, and CiteSpace) were used to conduct the analysis including years, countries, institutes, authors, journals, co-citation references, and keywords.

Results

A total of 410 publications were identified with an average yearly growth rate of 32% (1999-2021), from 196 academic journals with 23,637 co-citation references by 871 institutions from 70 countries/regions. The United States was the most productive country (n = 80). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (n = 16), Université de Montréal (n = 13), and Syreon Research Institute (n = 12) were the top productive institutions. A A Zaidan, Mireille Goetghebeur and Zoltan Kalo were the biggest nodes in every cluster of authors' networks. The top journals in terms of the number of articles (n = 17) and citations (n = 1,673) were Value in Health and Journal of Medical Systems, respectively. The extant literature has focused on four aspects, including the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), decision-making, health technology assessment, and healthcare waste management. COVID-19 and fuzzy TOPSIS received careful attention from MCDA applications recently. MCDA in big data, telemedicine, TOPSIS, and fuzzy AHP is well-developed and an important theme, which may be the trend in future research.

Conclusion

This study uncovers a holistic picture of the performance of MCDA-related literature published in healthcare. MCDA has a broad application on different topics and would be helpful for practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers working in healthcare to advance the wheel of medical complex decision-making. It can be argued that the door is still open for improving the role of MCDA in healthcare, whether in its methodology (e.g., fuzzy TOPSIS) or application (e.g., telemedicine).

Framework Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs–a Study Protocol Using the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process

Measuring the value of drugs to help make health-care decisions is a complex process which involves confronting trade-offs among multiple objectives. Although guidelines have been released for clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs, refinement is required when considering a specific drug used in a specific disease. In this study, a two-level framework for clinical comprehensive evaluation of drugs will be developed. Six first-level indicators, including safety, efficacy, costs/cost-effectiveness, novelty, suitability, and accessibility will be evaluated according to the Chinese Guideline for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs. The second-level components involved in the framework will be first validated by the Delphi method and subsequently compared with one another to get the index weight based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The scoring criteria of each component in the framework will also be determined by the Delphi method and AHP. The scoring criteria of components representing therapeutic effects will involve both score of therapeutic effects and score of evidence quality. With the evidence of the drug to be evaluated, the score of each component will be obtained according to the established scoring criteria, and the overall comprehensive score value of the drug will be calculated, which will assist the evidence-based decision making.

Early Access to Medicines: Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) as a Decision Tool in Catalonia (Spain)

Early access to medicines allows the prescription of a medicine before it is available in the public formulary to patients with severe or rare diseases with high unmet needs who have no authorised therapeutic alternatives available. In this context, consistent decision making is difficult, and a systematic assessment procedure could be useful to tackle complex situations and guarantee the equity of medicines’ access. A multidisciplinary panel (MP) conducted four workshops to develop an early access framework based on a reflective multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). A set of 12 criteria was agreed: eight quantitative (severity of disease, urgency, efficacy, safety, internal and external validity, therapeutic benefit and plausibility) and four qualitative (therapeutic alternative, existence of precedents, management impact and costs). Quantitative criteria were weighted using a five-point scale. The relative importance of quantitative criteria had mean weights from 4.7 to 3.6, showing its relevance in the decisions. The framework was tested using two case studies, and reliability was assessed by re-test. The re-test revealed no statistical differences, indicating the consistency and replicability of the framework developed. MCDA may help to structure discussions for heterogeneous treatment requests, providing predictability and robustness in decision making involving sensitive and complex situations.

Understanding innovation of health technology assessment methods: the IHTAM framework

Adequate methods are urgently needed to guarantee the good practice of health technology assessment (HTA) for technologies with novel properties. The aim of the study was to construct a conceptual framework to help understand the innovation of HTA methods (IHTAM). The construction of the IHTAM framework was based on two scoping reviews, one on the current practice of innovating methods, that is existing HTA frameworks, and one on theoretical foundations for innovating methods outside the HTA discipline. Both aimed to identify and synthesize concepts of innovation (i.e., innovation processes and roles of stakeholders in innovation). Using these concepts, the framework was developed in iterative brainstorming sessions and subsequent discussions with representatives from various stakeholder groups. The framework was constructed based on twenty documents on innovating HTA frameworks and fourteen guidelines from three scientific disciplines. It includes a generic innovation process consisting of three phases (“Identification,” “Development,” and “Implementation”) and nine subphases. In the framework, three roles that HTA stakeholders can play in innovation (“Developers,” “Practitioners,” and “Beneficiaries”) are defined, and a process on how the stakeholders innovate HTA methods is included. The IHTAM framework visualizes systematically which elements and stakeholders are important to the development and implementation of novel HTA methods. The framework could be used by all stakeholders involved in HTA innovation to learn how to engage dynamically and collaborate effectively throughout the innovation process. HTA stakeholders in practice have welcomed the framework, though additional testing of its applicability and acceptance is essential.

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.

Impact on decision making framework for medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospital decision-making: determining the value of five dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospitals is decided by the hospital Pharmacy Management Committee (PMC), that is complex, subjective and requires efficient approaches to ensure transparency and consistency for the factors being considered. This study aimed to use the Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) framework to assess medicine in these hospitals. In this study anti-diabetic drugs DPP-4 inhibitors, which work by inhibiting the activation of the Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, were appraised.

METHODS

Following EVIDEM methodology (EVIDEM-10th), we convened an appraisal group and asked each individual to express their perspectives by assigning weights to each criterion. A systematic literature search for information of each criterion of five DPP-4 inhibitors was completed. Then the appraisal group scored for each criterion of the five DPP-4 inhibitors. The estimated value of the five DPP-4 inhibitors was obtained by Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) which combined individual weighting of each criterion with individual scoring for each intervention in each criterion.

RESULTS

By assigning weights, the most important criterion was the quality of evidence (4.01±0.52), and that the comparative cost consequences-non-medical cost was the least important criterion (2.87±1.03). Criteria included disease severity, size of the affected population, comparative effectiveness, type of therapeutic/preventive benefit and cost of intervention, all of which were assigned the same weight of 3.58. After MCDA, the overall value orders for each DPP-4 inhibitor included Sitagliptin (0.45), Linagliptin (0.44), Vildagliptin (0.43), Alogliptin (0.42) and Saxagliptin (0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on EVIDEM framework and MCDA, we found that overall value of five DPP-4 inhibitors was similar. It is feasible to use the EVIDEM framework and MCDA in purchasing medicine for Chinese public hospitals.

Two Sides of the Same Coin? A Dual Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis of Novel Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis in Physicians and Patients

PURPOSE

Available treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) differ in important aspects. In this sense, each RA treatment option is accompanied by a spectrum of characteristics that collectively constitute its comprehensive "value," as viewed from the physician's or the patient's perspective. The objective of this study was to perform a multiple criteria decision analysis of different RA treatments from the perspective of physicians and patients and to outline the respective aspects of value for each treatment METHODS: A literature review was performed for constructing a set of criteria (N = 8) for the multiple criteria decision analysis. Workshops for the elicitation of preferences occurred separately for physicians and patients. A performance matrix was populated via 2 network meta-analyses plus converged clinical opinion. Criteria were hierarchically classified by application of pairwise comparisons, and criteria weights were attributed by point allocation through convergence of opinions. Performances in both panels were scored by using a 100-point scale. A linear additive value function was used for the calculation of total value estimates.

FINDINGS

Both panels provided their consensus. The hierarchical classification of attributes from the physician perspective placed the highest values on the criteria of severe adverse events, clinical efficacy, route of administration, and cost per year for the third-party payer. From the patient perspective, the highest ranking criteria were clinical efficacy, severe adverse events, percentage of patients remaining with the same targeted immune modulator for 1 year ("drug survival"), and cost per year for the third-party payer.

IMPLICATIONS

In an era of multiple options and varying preferences, RA treatments must be evaluated by taking into consideration patients' preferences as well, as to cover the full spectrum of value elements rather than simply clinical outcomes. The results of this analysis show that physicians and patients share similarities but also marked differences in terms of the aspects of treatment that they perceive as more valuable.

A systematic review of moral reasons on orphan drug reimbursement

BACKGROUND

The number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

With a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.

Economic Evaluation of New Models of Care: Does the Decision Change Between Cost-Utility Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis?

OBJECTIVES

To experiment with new approaches of collaboration in healthcare delivery, local authorities implement new models of care. Regarding the local decision context of these models, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may be of added value to cost-utility analysis (CUA), because it covers a wider range of outcomes. This study compares the 2 methods using a side-by-side application.

METHODS

A new Dutch model of care, Primary Care Plus (PC+), was used as a case study to compare the results of CUA and MCDA. Data of patients referred to PC+ or care-as-usual were retrieved by questionnaires and administrative databases with a 3-month follow-up. Propensity score matching together with generalized linear regression models was used to reduce confounding. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore uncertainty in the results.

RESULTS

Although both methods indicated PC+ as the dominant alternative, complementary differences were observed. MCDA provided additional evidence that PC+ improved access to care (standardized performance score of 0.742 vs 0.670) and that improvement in health-related quality of life was driven by the psychological well-being component (standardized performance score of 0.710 vs 0.704). Furthermore, MCDA estimated the budget required for PC+ to be affordable in addition to preferable (€521.42 per patient). Additionally, MCDA was less sensitive to the utility measures used.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA may facilitate an auditable and transparent evaluation of new models of care by providing additional information on a wider range of outcomes and incorporating affordability. However, more effort is needed to increase the usability of MCDA among local decision makers.

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.

Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Responsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.

METHODS

We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool's 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study's database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet's AC) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool's application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).

CONCLUSION

By confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool's reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.

A virtual simulation-based educational application about complementary and alternative medicine: A pilot study of nurses' attitudes and communication competency

BACKGROUND

Conventional healthcare professionals have insufficient knowledge about complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) and often lack competencies to overcome attitudinal barriers to communicate effectively with patients about CAM. Interacting with a virtual simulation-based educational application program may help nurses learn current evidence and acquire communication skills when consulting with patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate nurses' attitudes towards patients' CAM use and their competency in communicating with patients about CAM after interacting with a virtual simulation-based educational app.

DESIGN

A quasi-experimental study with one-group, pretest-posttest design.

METHODS

A total of 49 nurses volunteered to participate in the study. Participants interacted with a virtual simulation software app on a smartphone that included audiovisual presentations about CAM, 13 exercises, and a risk-benefit decision assessment. Data about nurses' attitudes and communication competency were collected at baseline and after completing the 13 exercises. Descriptive and comparative statistics were analyzed using the IBM® SPSS® version 22.0.

RESULTS

Both the nurses' attitudes about patients' CAM use and communication competency improved significantly following the completion of the 13 exercises. The risk-benefit decision scores correlated significantly with the increase in nurses' attitudes and their communication competency.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a virtual simulation-based educational app may help nurses not only increase their attitudes towards CAM but also increase their communication competency in consulting with patients about CAM use.

The most important facilitators and barriers to the use of Health Technology Assessment in Canada: a best-worst scaling approach

BACKGROUND

Health Technology Assessment (HTA), which can support public drug reimbursement decisions will play a core function in the planned national Pharmacare program in Canada. To address existing barriers to the use of HTA, these must be ranked in order of priority. The goal of this study was to access the relative importance of known facilitators and barriers to the use of HTA in the context of the Canadian health care system, with attention to differences between regions and stakeholder groups.

METHODS

We used the best-worst scaling object case approach to elicit a quantitative ranking of a list of 20 facilitators and 22 barriers. A sample of 68 Canadian HTA stakeholders, including members of expert committees, decision/policymakers, researchers/academics, and others participated in the study. Their task was to identify the most important and the least important item in 12 sub-sets of five facilitators and 14 sub-sets of five barriers.

FINDINGS

Relative Importance Scores derived via hierarchical Bayes analysis revealed relations, engagement, and contact between stakeholders as most important on both the barrier and facilitator sides. Other top-ranked facilitators included the availably of credible and relevant research. Other top-ranked barriers included inconsistencies in the evidence and limited generalizability. The availability of HTA guidelines did not rank highly on either side. The main limitation of the study was the challenge with reaching the relevant respondents; this was mitigated by involving the national HTA agency in the research.

CONCLUSION

Canadian stakeholders consider the relationships within the HTA network among the most important. Policies should focus on strengthening these relationships. Future research should focus on the connectivity and distribution of knowledge and power within the HTA network.

Potential Criteria for Frameworks to Support the Evaluation of Innovative Medicines in Upper Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Literature Review on Value Frameworks and Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses

Background

Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a formal decision support framework, has been growing in popularity recently in the field of health care. MCDA can support pricing and reimbursement decisions on the macro level, which is of great importance especially in countries with more limited resources.

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to facilitate the development of future MCDA frameworks, by proposing a set of criteria focusing on the purchasing decisions of single-source innovative pharmaceuticals in upper middle-income countries.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted on the decision criteria included in value frameworks (VFs) or MCDA tools. Scopus, Medline, databases of universities, websites of Health Technology Assessment Agencies, and other relevant organizations were included in the search. Double title-abstract screening and double full-text review were conducted, and all extracted data were double-checked. A team of researchers performed the merging and selection process of the extracted criteria.

Results

A total of 1,878 articles entered the title and abstract screening. From these, 341 were eligible to the full-text review, and 36 were included in the final data extraction phase. From these articles 394 criteria were extracted in total. After deduplication and clustering, 26 different criteria were identified. After the merging and selection process, a set of 16 general criteria was proposed.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the systematic literature review, a pool of 16 criteria was selected. This can serve as a starting point for constructing MCDA frameworks in upper middle-income countries after careful adaptation to the local context.

Can multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) be implemented into real-world drug decision-making processes? A Canadian provincial experience

OBJECTIVE

To describe the implementation of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) into a Canadian public drug reimbursement decision-making process, identifying the aspects of the MCDA approach, and the context that promoted uptake.

METHODS

Narrative summary of case study describing the how, when, and why of implementing MCDA.

RESULTS

Faced with a fixed budget, a pipeline of expensive but potentially valuable drugs, and potential delays to drug decision making, the Ministry of Health (i.e., decision makers) and its independent expert advisory committee (IAB) sought alternative values-based decision processes. MCDA was considered highly compatible with current processes, but the ability as a stand-alone intervention to address issues of opportunity cost was unclear. The IAB nevertheless collaboratively voted to implement an externally developed MCDA with support from decision makers. After several months of engagement and piloting, implementation was rapid and leveraged strong pre-existing formal and informal communication networks. The IAB as a whole rates new submissions which serves as an input into the deliberative process.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA can be a highly adaptable approach that can be implemented into a functioning drug reimbursement setting when facilitated by (i) a truly limited budget; (ii) a shared vision for change by end-users and decision makers; (iii) using pre-existing deliberative processes; and (iv) viewing the approach as a decision framework rather than the decision (when appropriate). Given the current limitations of MCDA, implementing an academically imperfect tool first and evaluating later reflects a practical solution to real-time fiscal constraints and impending delays to drug approvals that may be faced by decision makers.

Early Health Technology Assessment during Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Drug Development: A Two-Round, Cross-Country, Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Background. The assessment of value along the clinical development of new biopharmaceutical compounds is a challenging task. Complex and uncertain evidence has to be analyzed, considering a multitude of value preferences from different stakeholders. Objective. To investigate the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support decision making during drug development while considering payer and health technology assessment (HTA) value concerns, by applying the Advance Value Framework in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and testing for the consistency of the results. Design. A multiattribute value theory methodology was applied and 2 rounds of decision conferences (DCs) were organized in 3 countries (England, France, and Germany), with the participation of national key experts and stakeholders using the MACBETH questioning protocol and algorithm. A total of 51 health care professionals, patient advocates, and methodologists, including (ex-) committee members or assessors from national HTA bodies, participated in 6 DCs in the study countries. Target Population. NASH patients in fibrosis stages F2 to 3 were considered. Interventions. The value of a hypothetical product profile was assessed against 3 compounds under development using their phase 2 results. Outcome Measures. DC participants' value preferences were elicited involving criteria selection, options scoring, and criteria weighting. Results. Highly consistent valuation rankings were observed in all DCs, always favoring the same compound. Highly consistent rankings of criteria clusters were observed, favoring therapeutic benefit criteria, followed by safety profile and innovation level criteria. Limitations. There was a lack of comparative treatment effects, early evidence on surrogate endpoints was used, and stakeholder representativeness was limited in some DCs. Conclusions. The use of MCDA is promising in supporting early HTA, illustrating high consistency in results across countries and between study rounds.

ICER Value Framework 2020 Update: Recommendations on the Aggregation of Benefits and Contextual Considerations

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States recently published a 2020 update to its value assessment framework. We are commenting on the method by which the benefits of health interventions are integrated, relating to contextual considerations and other factors relevant to an intervention's value. We start by discussing the theoretical foundations of decision analysis and its extension to multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Then we provide a detailed, evidence-based response to some of the claims made by ICER with regard to the use of MCDA methods and stakeholder engagement. Finally, we provide a number of recommendations on the use of quantitative decision analysis and decision conferencing that could be of relevance to the ICER methodology. Overall, we agree that some of the proposed changes by ICER are moving in the right direction toward improving transparency in the value assessment process, but these changes are probably inadequate. We advocate that more serious attention should be paid to the use of quantitative decision analysis together with decision conferencing for the construction of value preferences via group processes for the integration of an intervention's various benefit components.

[GRADE: Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for coverage decisions]

BACKGROUND

Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE project, a GRADE working group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for different types of decisions, including coverage ones.

METHODS

We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework.

RESULTS

The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using 12 criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions.

CONCLUSION

The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

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.

Assessment and prioritization of the WHO "best buys" and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in Iran

BACKGROUND

The WHO's "best buys" and other recommended interventions are a menu of policy options and cost-effective interventions for the prevention and control of major noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The menu has six objectives, implementing which by member states is expected to promote the achievement of the nine NCD targets by 2025. In line with their context, countries can select from the menu of best buys and other recommended interventions. Iran adopted its national action plan on NCDs, 2015, including global as well as some specific goals and targets. This study had two objectives: analyzing the gaps to reach the national targets on NCDs; and prioritizing the best buys and other recommended interventions based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDA) method for the context of Iran.

METHODS

This is a mixed-methods study. We used qualitative textual evidence (documentary content analysis) and MCDA for prioritization of interventions based on five criteria, including a number of people to be potentially affected by the intervention, cost-effectiveness of the intervention, attributable burden (DALY per 100,000), hospitalization and variations among income levels. Data related to five criteria for each intervention were extracted from national studies and relevant international organizations. The weight of each criterion determines based on the opinions of national experts.

RESULTS

Out of 105 actions and interventions recommended by WHO, only 12 of them were not on the national agenda in Iran, while the six missed interventions were related to objective number 4. Only one of the best buys Group's interventions was not targeted (vaccination against human papillomavirus, two doses of 9-13-year-old girls), for which arrangements are being made for the implementation. Encouraging and educating healthy dietary habits and increasing public awareness about the side effects of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke, e.g., through mass media campaigns, are among the interventions in need of serious prioritization. The priority of interventions was independently calculated in the area of risk factors and clinical preventive interventions.

CONCLUSION

Due to limited resources, low and middle-income countries (LMICs) need to identify and prioritize more cost-effective and more equitable interventions to combat the NCD epidemic. Based on our findings, we advocate more investment in the mass and social media campaigns to promote a healthy diet, avoid tobacco use, as well as the inclusion of some effective clinical preventive interventions into the national action plan, along the long pathway to tackle NCDs and ultimately reach sustainable health development in Iran. The use of the MCDA approach assisted us in formulating a simultaneous use of efficiency and equity, and other indices for prioritizing the interventions.

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework

Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has emerged as a methodology for Health Technology Assessment (HTA). However, limited empirical evidence is available on its use by decision-makers; where available, it only comes from single-setting exercises, while cross-country comparative studies are unavailable. This study applies the Advance Value Framework (AVF), an MCDA methodology for HTA based on multi-attribute value theory, through a series of case studies with decision-makers in four countries, to explore its feasibility and compare decision-makers' value preferences and results. The AVF was applied in the evaluation of three drugs for metastatic, castrate resistant, prostate cancer (abiraterone, cabazitaxel and enzalutamide) in the post-chemotherapy indication. Decision conferences were organised in four European countries in collaboration with their HTA or health insurance organisations by involving relevant assessors and experts: Sweden (TLV), Andalusia/Spain (AETSA), Poland (AOTMiT) and Belgium (INAMI-RIZIV). Participants' value preferences, including performance scoring and criteria weighting, were elicited through a facilitated decision-analysis modelling approach using the MACBETH technique. Between 6 and 11 criteria were included in each jurisdiction's value model, allocated across four criteria domains; Therapeutic Benefit criteria consistently ranked first in relative importance across all countries. Consistent drug rankings were observed in all settings, with enzalutamide generating the highest overall weighted preference value (WPV) score, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. Dividing drugs' overall WPV scores by their costs produced the lowest "cost per unit of value" for enzalutamide, followed by abiraterone and cabazitaxel. These results come in contrast with the actual country HTA recommendations and pricing decisions. Overall, although some differences in value preferences were observed between countries, drug rankings remained the same. The MCDA methodology employed could act as a decision support tool in HTA, due to the transparency in the construction of value preferences in a collaborative manner.

PARS, a system combining semantic technologies with multiple criteria decision aiding for supporting antibiotic prescriptions

OBJECTIVE

Motivated by the well documented worldwide spread of adverse drug events, as well as the increased danger of antibiotic resistance (caused mainly by inappropriate prescribing and overuse), we propose a novel recommendation system for antibiotic prescription (PARS).

METHOD

Our approach is based on the combination of semantic technologies with MCDA (Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding) that allowed us to build a two level decision support model. Given a specific domain, the approach assesses the adequacy of an alternative/action (prescription of antibiotic) for a specific subject (patient) with an issue (bacterial infection) in a given context (medical). The goal of the first level of the decision support model is to select the set of alternatives which have the potential to be suitable. Then the second level sorts the alternatives into categories according to their adequacy using an MCDA sorting method (MR-Sort with Veto) and a structured set of description logic queries.

RESULTS

We applied this approach in the domain of antibiotic prescriptions, working closely with the EpiCura Hospital Center (BE). Its performance was compared to the EpiCura recommendation guidelines which are currently in use. The results showed that the proposed system is more consistent in its recommendations when compared with the static EpiCura guidelines. Moreover, with PARS the antibiotic prescribing workflow becomes more flexible. PARS allows the user (physician) to update incrementally and dynamically a patient's profile with more information, or to input knowledge modifications that accommodate the decision context (like the introduction of new side effects and antibiotics, the development of germs that are resistant, etc). At the end of our evaluation, we detail a number of limitations of the current version of PARS and discuss future perspectives.

Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art

BACKGROUND

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) concepts, models and tools have been used increasingly in health technology assessment (HTA), with several studies pointing out practical and theoretical issues related to its use. This study provides a critical review of published studies on MCDA in the context of HTA by assessing their methodological quality and summarising methodological challenges.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies discussing, developing or reviewing the use of MCDA in HTA using aggregation approaches. Studies were classified according to publication time and type, country of study, technology type and study type. The PROACTIVE-S approach was constructed and used to analyse methodological quality. Challenges and limitations reported in eligible studies were collected and summarised; this was followed by a critical discussion on research requirements to address the identified challenges.

RESULTS

129 journal articles were eligible for review, 56% of which were published in 2015-2017; 42% focused on pharmaceuticals; 36, 26 and 18% reported model applications, issues regarding MCDA implementation analyses, and proposing frameworks, respectively. Poor compliance with good methodological practice (< 25% complying studies) was found regarding behavioural analyses, discussion of model assumptions and uncertainties, modelling of value functions, and dealing with judgment inconsistencies. The five most reported challenges related to evidence and data synthesis; value system differences and participant selection issues; participant difficulties; methodological complexity and resource balance; and criteria and attributes modelling. A critical discussion on ways to address these challenges ensues.

DISCUSSION

Results highlight the need for advancement in robust methodologies, procedures and tools to improve methodological quality of MCDA in HTA studies. Research pathways include developing new model features, good practice guidelines, technologies to enable participation and behavioural research.

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

Can reflective multicriteria be the new paradigm for healthcare decision-making? The EVIDEM journey

Background

Multiple technologies, procedures and programs call for fairly-based decisions for prioritization of healthcare interventions. There is a diversity of perspectives of what constitutes a legitimate decision, which depends on both the process and the reasoning applied. Current approaches focus on technical aspects while methods to support alignment of decisions with the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems is lacking.

Methods

The framework was developed based on an analysis of the foundations of healthcare systems, the reasoning underlying decisions and fair processes. The concept of reflective multicriteria was created: it assumes that decisionmakers guided by a generic interpretative frame rooted in the compassionate impetus of healthcare systems, can sharpen their reasoning, raise awareness of their motivation and increase legitimacy of decisions. The initial framework was made available through a not for profit organization (the EVIDEM Collaboration, 2006–2017) to stimulate its development with thought leaders and stakeholders in an open source philosophy. Development was tailored to the real-life needs of decisionmakers and drew on several domains of knowledge including healthcare ethics, evidenced-based medicine, health economics, health technology assessment and multicriteria approaches.

Results

The 10th edition framework builds on four dimensions: (1) the universal impetus of healthcare systems, (2) reasoning, values and ethics, (3) evidence and knowledge on interventions, and (4) a transformative process. Mathematical aspects of the framework are designed to help clarify, express and share individual reasoning; this non-conventional use of numbers requires a cultural change and needs to be phased in slowly. The framework includes four tools for easy adaptation and operationalization: (a) concepts and operationalization, (b) adapt and pilot, (c) evidence matrix, (d) mathematical representation of reasoning. Application is useful throughout all types of healthcare interventions, for all levels of decision, and across the globe.

Conclusion

By clarifying their reasoning while keeping decisionmakers aware of the impetus of healthcare systems, reflective multicriteria provides an effective approach to increase the legitimacy of decisions. Beyond a tool, reflective multicriteria pioneered by EVIDEM is geared to transform our vision of the value of healthcare interventions and how they might contribute to relevant, equitable and sustainable healthcare systems.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0116-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

HTA and MCDA solely or combined? The case of priority-setting in Colombia

Background

All healthcare systems face problems of justice and efficiency related to setting priorities for allocating limited financial resources. Therefore, explicit decision-making in healthcare depicted as a continuum from evidence generation to deliberation and communication of the decision made, needs to be transparent and fair. Nevertheless, priority-setting in many parts of the world remains being implicit and ad-hoc process. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) have emerged as policy tools to assist informed decision-making. Both, MCDA and HTA have pros and cons.

Main body

Colombia experienced an important institutional transformation after the establishment of the Health Technology Assessment Institute in 2012. This paper briefly presents the current challenges of the Colombian health system, the general features of the new health sector reform, the main characteristics of HTA in Colombia and the potential benefits and caveats of incorporating MCDA approaches into the decision-making process.

Conclusion

Structured and objective consideration of the factors that are both measurable and value-based in an open and transparent manner may be feasible through combining HTA and MCDA in contexts like Colombia. Further testing and validation of HTA and MCDA solely or combined in LMICs are needed to advance these approaches into healthcare decision-making worldwide.

Assessing Lung Cancer Screening Programs under Uncertainty in a Heterogeneous Population

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening can reduce cancer mortality. Most implementation studies focus only on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and clinical attributes of screening and do not include preferences of potential participants. In this study we evaluated the perceived value of screening programs based on LDCT, breath analysis (BA), or blood biomarkers (BB) according to the perspective of the target population.

METHODS

A multi-criteria decision analysis framework was adopted. The weights of seven attributes of screening (sensitivity, specificity, radiation burden, duration of screening process, waiting time until results are communicated, location of screening, and mode of screening) were obtained from an earlier study that included a broad sample from the Netherlands. Performance data for the screening modalities was obtained from clinical trials and expert opinion. Parameter uncertainty about clinical performances was incorporated probabilistically, while heterogeneity in preferences was analyzed through subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

The mean overall values were 0.58 (CI: 0.57 to 0.59), 0.57 (CI: 0.56 to 0.59), and 0.44 (CI: 0.43 to 0.45) for BB, BA, and LDCT, respectively. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents preferred BB or BA. For most subgroups, the overall values were similar to those of the entire sample. BA had the highest value for respondents who would have been eligible for earlier screening trials.

DISCUSSION

BB and BA seem valuable to participants because they can be applied in a primary care setting. Although LDCT still seems preferable given its strong and positive evidence base, it is important to take non-clinical attributes into account to maximize attendance.

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a systematic review of the main characteristics and methodological steps

Background

The health area is one of the most affected systems on the perspective of decision-making with multiobjectives, thus becoming prone to errors in the final solution, however, multicriteria decision analysis (MDCA) appears as an aid tool for this process decision-making. Therefore,the present study aims to analyze and synthesize articles found in the literature, involing MCDA in health care, evaluating general issues and methodological aspects, structuring them in a single work.

Methods

Surveys in the bibliographic databases SCOPUS and PUBMED indicated 1852 documents on the subject, however after a careful verificatios, 66 studies were selected to be analyzed completely. The data extracted from the included articles were organized into a spreadsheet for the preparation of analysis, and the technique used was descriptive statistics.

Results

It was possible to identify a growth trend in the application of the MCDA in the health area, but no dominance was identified in relation to the authors of the publication and the periodicals where they are published, but some countries stood out in terms of the number of published researches, such as: Canada and Turkey. In defining the decision problem, and in defining criteria, the “literature” presented the greatest demand for those who wish to structure their decision problem. Finally, it was verified by the analysis of the problem, that the MCDA to solve the problems of ranking has comprehensive application and that there is a greater incidence in the use of the AHP and Logic methods Fuzzy.

Conclusion

With this, it is possible to observe, through the data of this review, that more than the multicriteria methods, the multicriteria decision model has been highlighted, also in the health area. In addition, the study can guide new applications and techniques using MCDA in the health care.

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.

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) for health technology assessment: the Queensland Health experience

Objectives In determining whether new health technologies should be funded, health technology assessment (HTA) committees prefer explicit to implicit methods of analysis in enhancing transparency and consistency of decision making. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for the Queensland Department of Health HTA program committee, which weighted decision making criteria according to their perceived importance as determined by group consensus. Methods The criteria used in the MCDA framework were identified by reviewing the five unweighted criteria used in the existing process, consultation with committee members and literature review. Criteria were clearly defined and ordinal categories of lowest to highest preferred were assigned against which technology submissions would be rated. Criteria weights were determined through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey of committee members using validated software. Mean weighted technology scores were then used to guide deliberative discussions in determining final funding decisions. Results The MCDA framework created one additional criterion to the previous five. The criteria and their mean weights identified through the DCE survey were clinical benefit and safety (27.2%), quality of evidence (19.2%), implementation capacity (16.9%), innovation (15.4%), burden of disease and clinical need (13.3%) and societal and ethical values (8.0%). Criterion weights varied considerably between individual committee members, with one criterion having a difference of 36.9% between the highest and lowest preference weights. Following deliberative discussions, all but one of 10 submissions were awarded funding. The submission not supported received the third lowest score through the MCDA model. Conclusions This pilot application of an MCDA framework, as a complement to committee deliberation, conferred greater transparency and objectivity on HTA assessment of technologies. The framework converted an implicit, unweighted review process to one that is more explicit, flexible in weighting importance and pragmatic. What is known about the topic? HTA programs involve complex decision-making processes requiring the consideration of multiple criteria. Explicit methods of analysis that use weighted criteria according to their relative importance enhance transparency and consistency of decision making by HTA committees, and are preferred to implicit reviews using unweighted criteria. What does this paper add? This article describes the development and piloting of an MCDA framework that aims to improve transparency, objectivity and consistency of funding decisions of the Queensland HTA committee. Criteria were identified through a review of current processes, committee discussions and a literature review, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality of evidence system. Criteria were weighted using a discrete choice experiment involving committee members. Using weighted criteria, mean technology scores were calculated and incorporated into deliberative discussions to determine funding decisions. What are the implications for practitioners? The MCDA framework described here converted a more implicit, unweighted process to one that was more pragmatic, explicit and flexible in scoring HTA submissions. This framework may be useful to other HTA programs and could be expanded to resource allocation decision making in many other healthcare settings.

Applying Reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making on the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish Context

Introduction

Unresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options.

Methods

The EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit–risk balance (RBRB, scale − 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed.

Results

Focusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study.

Conclusion

The multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts.

Funding

IPSEN Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0745-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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)

BACKGROUND

Healthcare decision makers need to make trade-offs between different elements of value of new treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) provides a framework that can help decision makers to understand stakeholders' preferences and be explicit about the trade-offs that are being made.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to use MCDA to obtain preferences and views on decision criteria across three stakeholder groups (patients, clinicians and payers) in Italy and to use these to assess the performance of obinutuzumab for rituximab-refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL).

METHODS

We used EVIDEM V3.0, an MCDA framework, and collected participants' preferences via an online survey and structured meetings.

RESULTS

Patients and clinicians expressed a preference for interventions targeting severe conditions. Payers expressed preference for treatments targeting areas with an unmet need, which are cheaper than the comparator, and with high-quality evidence. Obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine, compared with bendamustine alone, received high positive scores for the criteria 'disease severity' and 'type of therapeutic benefit' by all three groups, and negative scores on the economic-related criteria, according to all stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA can be used to elicit the views of different stakeholder groups and has the potential to structure and inform reimbursement decisions.

Screening of groundwater remedial alternatives for brownfield sites: a comprehensive method integrated MCDA with numerical simulation

Brownfield sites pollution and remediation is an urgent environmental issue worldwide. The screening and assessment of remedial alternatives is especially complex owing to its multiple criteria that involves technique, economy, and policy. To help the decision-makers selecting the remedial alternatives efficiently, the criteria framework conducted by the U.S. EPA is improved and a comprehensive method that integrates multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) with numerical simulation is conducted in this paper. The criteria framework is modified and classified into three categories: qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative criteria, MCDA method, AHP-PROMETHEE (analytical hierarchy process-preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation) is used to determine the priority ranking of the remedial alternatives and the solute transport simulation is conducted to assess the remedial efficiency. A case study was present to demonstrate the screening method in a brownfield site in Cangzhou, northern China. The results show that the systematic method provides a reliable way to quantify the priority of the remedial alternatives.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) could potentially solve current methodological difficulties in the appraisal of orphan drugs.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of the existing evidence regarding the use of MCDA in the appraisal of orphan drugs worldwide. Three databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science) were searched for English, French and German literature published between January 2000 and April 2017. Full-text articles were supplemented with conference abstracts. A total of seven articles and six abstracts were identified.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The literature suggests that MCDA is increasingly being used in the context of appraising orphan drugs. It has shown itself to be a flexible approach with the potential to assist in decision-making regarding reimbursement for orphan drugs. However, further research regarding its application must be conducted.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States

Introduction

Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making.

Methods

The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing.

Results

The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives.

Funding

Ipsen Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0653-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION

BACKGROUND

The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps.

METHODS

The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps.

RESULTS

The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

[Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology resource allocation and assessment: so far and so near?]

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an emerging tool that allows the integration of relevant factors for health technology assessment (HTA). This study aims to present a summary of the methodological characteristics of MCDA: definitions, approaches, applications, and implementation stages. A case study was conducted in the São Paulo State Cancer Institute (ICESP) in order to understand the perspectives of decision-makers in the process of drafting a recommendation for the incorporation of technology in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), through a report by the Brazilian National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in the SUS (CONITEC). Paraconsistent annotated evidential logic Eτ was the methodological approach adopted in the study, since it can serve as an underlying logic for constructs capable of synthesizing objective information (from the scientific literature) and subjective information (from experts' values and preferences in the area of knowledge). It also allows the incorporation of conflicting information (contradictions), as well as vague and even incomplete information in the valuation process, resulting from imperfection of the available scientific evidence. The method has the advantages of allowing explicit consideration of the criteria that influenced the decision, facilitating follow-up and visualization of process stages, allowing assessment of the contribution of each criterion separately, and in aggregate, to the decision's outcome, facilitating the discussion of diverging perspectives by different stakeholder groups, and increasing the understanding of the resulting recommendations. The use of an explicit MCDA approach should facilitate conflict mediation and optimize participation by different stakeholder groups.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the ninth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The disinvestment literature has broadened considerably over the past decade; however there is a significant gap regarding systematic, integrated, organisation-wide approaches. This debate paper presents a discussion of the conceptual aspects of disinvestment from the local perspective.

DISCUSSION

Four themes are discussed: Terminology and concepts, Motivation and purpose, Relationships with other healthcare improvement paradigms, and Challenges to disinvestment. There are multiple definitions for disinvestment, multiple concepts underpin the definitions and multiple alternative terms convey these concepts; some definitions overlap and some are mutually exclusive; and there are systematic discrepancies in use between the research and practice settings. Many authors suggest that the term 'disinvestment' should be avoided due to perceived negative connotations and propose that the concept be considered alongside investment in the context of all resource allocation decisions and approached from the perspective of optimising health care. This may provide motivation for change, reduce disincentives and avoid some of the ethical dilemmas inherent in other disinvestment approaches. The impetus and rationale for disinvestment activities are likely to affect all aspects of the process from identification and prioritisation through to implementation and evaluation but have not been widely discussed. A need for mechanisms, frameworks, methods and tools for disinvestment is reported. However there are several health improvement paradigms with mature frameworks and validated methods and tools that are widely-used and well-accepted in local health services that already undertake disinvestment-type activities and could be expanded and built upon. The nature of disinvestment brings some particular challenges for policy-makers, managers, health professionals and researchers. There is little evidence of successful implementation of 'disinvestment' projects in the local setting, however initiatives to remove or replace technologies and practices have been successfully achieved through evidence-based practice, quality and safety activities, and health service improvement programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the construct of 'disinvestment' may be problematic at the local level. A new definition and two potential approaches to disinvestment are proposed to stimulate further research and discussion.