A comparison of two multiple-characteristic decision-making models for the comparison of antihypertensive drug classes: Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)

Determination of monosaccharides in Lycium barbarum fruit polysaccharide by an efficient UHPLC-QTRAP-MS/MS method

INTRODUCTION

Pre-column derivatisation using 1-phenyl-3-methyl-5-pyrazolone (PMP) is a common method for monosaccharide determination. Herein, a specific ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography quadrupole trap tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-QTRAP-MS/MS) method was developed and used for the determination of monosaccharide composition of Lycium barbarum polysaccharide (LBP).

OBJECTIVE

Exploration of a new efficient method for monosaccharide determination.

METHODS

In our study, hydrochloric acid was used to hydrolyse the polysaccharide obtained from L. barbarum fruits. Principal component analysis (PCA) and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) analysis were used for comprehensive evaluation of the samples. The results showed that LBP was composed of seven monosaccharides: galactose, arabinose, mannose, rhamnose, xylose, ribose, and glucose. The linear relationship of the seven monosaccharides was optimum within a certain concentration range. Quantitative recoveries of the seven monosaccharides from the samples ranged from 94.76% to 102.11%.

RESULTS

A rapid quantitative detection method was established, in which the hydrolysis time was reduced from 12 h to 2 h. By using LBP as one of the indexes to evaluate the quality of L. barbarum, L. barbarum from Zhongning County, Ningxia Province, was identified as having the best quality among the varieties tested.

CONCLUSION

The UHPLC-QTRAP-MS/MS pre-column derivatisation method used in this study was simple, accurate, and sensitive, with good repeatability, and can be used for quality evaluation and origin distinction of L. barbarum and other medicinal plants.

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 Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force

Health care decisions are complex and involve confronting trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting objectives. Using structured, explicit approaches to decisions involving multiple criteria can improve the quality of decision making. A set of techniques, known under the collective heading, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), are useful for this purpose. In 2014, ISPOR established an Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The task force's first report defined MCDA, provided examples of its use in health care, described the key steps, and provided an overview of the principal methods of MCDA. This second task force report provides emerging good-practice guidance on the implementation of MCDA to support health care decisions. The report includes: a checklist to support the design, implementation and review of an MCDA; guidance to support the implementation of the checklist; the order in which the steps should be implemented; illustrates how to incorporate budget constraints into an MCDA; provides an overview of the skills and resources, including available software, required to implement MCDA; and future research directions.

Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature

The objective of this study is to support those undertaking a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by reviewing the approaches adopted in healthcare MCDAs to date, how these varied with the objective of the study, and the lessons learned from this experience. Searches of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified 40 studies that provided 41 examples of MCDA in healthcare. Data were extracted on the objective of the study, methods employed, and decision makers' and study authors' reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The recent interest in MCDA in healthcare is mirrored in an increase in the application of MCDA to evaluate healthcare interventions. Of the studies identified, the first was published in 1990, but more than half were published since 2011. They were undertaken in 18 different countries, and were designed to support investment (coverage and reimbursement), authorization, prescription, and research funding allocation decisions. Many intervention types were assessed: pharmaceuticals, public health interventions, screening, surgical interventions, and devices. Most used the value measurement approach and scored performance using predefined scales. Beyond these similarities, a diversity of different approaches were adopted, with only limited correspondence between the approach and the type of decision or product. Decision makers consulted as part of these studies, as well as the authors of the studies are positive about the potential of MCDA to improve decision making. Further work is required, however, to develop guidance for those undertaking MCDA.