Revealed preferences towards the appraisal of orphan drugs in Poland - multi criteria decision analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
A Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) technique was adopted to reveal the preferences of the Appraisal Body of the Polish HTA agency towards orphan drugs (OMPs).Results
There were 34 positive and 23 negative HTA recommendations out of 54 distinctive drug-indication pairs. The MCDA matrix consisted of 13 criteria, seven of which made the most impact on the HTA process. Appraisal of clinical evidence, cost of therapy, and safety considerations were the main contributors to the HTA guidance, whilst advancement of technology and manufacturing costs made the least impact.Conclusions
MCDA can be regarded as a valuable tool for revealing decision makers' preferences in the healthcare sector. Given that only roughly half of all criteria included in the MCDA matrix were deemed to make an impact on the HTA process, there is certainly some room for improvement with respect to the adaptation of a new approach towards the value assessment of OMPs in Poland.
SUBMITTER: Kolasa K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5922020 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Revealed preferences towards the appraisal of orphan drugs in Poland - multi criteria decision analysis.
Kolasa Katarzyna K Zwolinski Krzysztof Miroslaw KM Zah Vladimir V Kaló Zoltán Z Lewandowski Tadeusz T
Orphanet journal of rare diseases 20180427 1
<h4>Background</h4>A Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) technique was adopted to reveal the preferences of the Appraisal Body of the Polish HTA agency towards orphan drugs (OMPs).<h4>Results</h4>There were 34 positive and 23 negative HTA recommendations out of 54 distinctive drug-indication pairs. The MCDA matrix consisted of 13 criteria, seven of which made the most impact on the HTA process. Appraisal of clinical evidence, cost of therapy, and safety considerations were the main contribut ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Increasingly, multi-criteria decision analysis has gained importance as a method by which to assess the value of orphan drugs. However, very little attention has been given to the weight (relative preferences) of the individual criteria used in a framework. Aims: This study sought to gain an understanding of the preferential weights that should be allocated in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework for orphan drugs, from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Method: Using key MCDA criteria for orphan drugs reported in the literature, we developed an interactive web-based survey tool to capture preferences for different criteria from a general stakeholder sample who were requested to assign weights from a reimbursement perspective. Each criterion could be assigned a weight on a sliding scale from 0 to 100% as long as the sum of all the criteria was 100%. We subsequently used the interactive tool with an expert focus group, followed up with a group discussion regarding each criterion and their perspectives on the weight that each criterion should be allocated when assessing an orphan drug. The expert focus group participants were then able to adjust their weights, if the group discussion had changed their perspectives. Results: The interactive tool was completed by 120 general stakeholder sample from a wide range of countries and professional backgrounds and an expert focus group of ten members. The results showed the differences in perspectives on the importance of criteria. Both groups considered Treatment efficacy to be the most important criterion. The general stakeholder sample weighted Treatment safety at 12.03% compared to the expert focus group's average of 20%. The results also demonstrated the value of the group discussion, which provided additional insights into the perspectives on the importance of criteria in assessing orphan drugs. Conclusion: This study aimed to contribute to the important aspect of preferences for different criteria in MCDA. This study sheds light on the important aspect of the preferences of the different criteria. All respondents agreed on the relative importance of Treatment efficacy and Treatment safety, criteria that are captured in conventional cost-effectiveness studies, but they also expressed the view that in addition to those, several disease-related and drug-related criteria should be included in MCDA frameworks for assessing orphan drugs.
| S-EPMC7225315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The need for patient engagement has been recognized by regulatory agencies, but there is no consensus about how to operationalize this. One approach is the formal elicitation and use of patient preferences for weighing clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate how patient preferences can be used to weigh clinical outcomes when both preferences and clinical outcomes are uncertain by applying a probabilistic value-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method. Probability distributions were used to model random variation and parameter uncertainty in preferences, and parameter uncertainty in clinical outcomes. The posterior value distributions and rank probabilities for each treatment were obtained using Monte-Carlo simulations. The probability of achieving the first rank is the probability that a treatment represents the highest value to patients. We illustrated our methodology for a simplified case on six HIV treatments. Preferences were modeled with normal distributions and clinical outcomes were modeled with beta distributions. The treatment value distributions showed the rank order of treatments according to patients and illustrate the remaining decision uncertainty. This study demonstrated how patient preference data can be used to weigh clinical evidence using MCDA. The model takes into account uncertainty in preferences and clinical outcomes. The model can support decision makers during the aggregation step of the MCDA process and provides a first step toward preference-based personalized medicine, yet requires further testing regarding its appropriate use in real-world settings.
| S-EPMC5306398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient's preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands-based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) -was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options.ResultsAfter determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users' informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient's preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid.ConclusionThis paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.
| S-EPMC8033667 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5990558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The vast volume of documents available in legal databases demands effective information retrieval approaches which take into consideration the intricacies of the legal domain. Relevant document retrieval is the backbone of the legal domain. The concept of relevance in the legal domain is very complex and multi-faceted. In this work, we propose a novel approach of concept based similarity estimation among court judgments. We use a graph-based method, to identify prominent concepts present in a judgment and extract sentences representative of these concepts. The sentences and concepts so mined are used to express/visualize likeness among concepts between a pair of documents from different perspectives. We also propose to aggregate the different levels of matching so obtained into one measure quantifying the level of similarity between a judgment pair. We employ the ordered weighted average (OWA) family of aggregation operators for obtaining the similarity value. The experimental results suggest that the proposed approach of concept based similarity is effective in the extraction of relevant legal documents and performs better than other competing techniques. Additionally, the proposed two-level abstraction of similarity enables informative visualization for deeper insights into case relevance.
| S-EPMC7924540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: While several authors have suggested using a multi-criteria approach for orphan drug assessment and proposed lists of determinants of orphan drug value, studies on social preferences regarding these determinants remain limited. The current study aimed to identify preferences of the French general population regarding attributes characterizing the value of orphan drugs in a discrete choice experiment. Methods: The list of attributes was formed based on a literature search and was refined through expert interviews, a focus group, and a pilot study. The final list included nine attributes: disease-associated disability, disease-associated mortality, number of patients, availability of alternative treatments, treatment impact on disease disability, treatment impact on mortality, treatment safety, uncertainty around therapeutic effect, and annual treatment cost per patient. Members of the General Public were presented with 12 choice sets containing two drug profiles described according to the attributes and an option to fund neither of these treatments. The questionnaire was disseminated online. A conditional logit model with random effects was used to estimate the weight of each attribute. Results: A total of 958 persons participated in the study (48.7% male, mean age: 47.5 years). All attributes except for disease-associated disability had a statistically significant influence on the choices made by participants. The attribute with the highest weight was treatment impact on mortality (p < 0.0001), followed by uncertainty around therapeutic effect (p < 0.0001). The direction of results was generally consistent with intuition: patients preferred a drug with a larger impact on mortality, a larger impact on disability, with mild or no adverse events, with less uncertainty. Although patients appeared to prefer drugs with a lower budget impact, the relationship between patient preferences and costs was more complex. Conclusions: Preferences of the general public between orphan drugs are mostly driven by the impact on mortality and the degree of certainty regarding the available evidence.
| S-EPMC7379418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe rate of development of new orphan drugs continues to grow. As a result, reimbursing orphan drugs on an exceptional basis is increasingly difficult to sustain from a health system perspective. An understanding of the value that societies attach to providing orphan drugs at the expense of other health technologies is now recognised as an important input to policy debates.ObjectivesThe aim of this work was to scope the social value arguments that have been advanced relating to the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and to locate these within a coherent decision-making framework to aid reimbursement decisions in the presence of limited healthcare resources.MethodsA scoping review of the peer reviewed and grey literature was undertaken, consisting of seven phases: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting, extracting and tabulating data; (5) analyzing data; (6) consulting relevant experts; and (7) presenting results. The points within decision processes where the identified value arguments would be incorporated were then located. This mapping was used to construct a framework characterising the distinct role of each value in informing decision making.ResultsThe scoping review identified 19 candidate decision factors, most of which can be characterised as either value-bearing or 'opportunity cost'-determining, and also a number of value propositions and pertinent sources of preference information. We were able to synthesize these into a coherent decision-making framework.ConclusionOur framework may be used to structure policy discussions and to aid transparency about the values underlying reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs. These values ought to be consistently applied to all technologies and populations affected by the decision.
| S-EPMC4342524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Strategy for Biosurveillance defines biosurveillance as "the process of gathering, integrating, interpreting, and communicating essential information related to all-hazards threats or disease activity affecting human, animal, or plant health to achieve early detection and warning, contribute to overall situational awareness of the health aspects of an incident, and to enable better decision-making at all levels." However, the strategy does not specify how "essential information" is to be identified and integrated into the current biosurveillance enterprise, or what the metrics qualify information as being "essential". The question of data stream identification and selection requires a structured methodology that can systematically evaluate the tradeoffs between the many criteria that need to be taken in account. Multi-Attribute Utility Theory, a type of multi-criteria decision analysis, can provide a well-defined, structured approach that can offer solutions to this problem. While the use of Multi-Attribute Utility Theoryas a practical method to apply formal scientific decision theoretical approaches to complex, multi-criteria problems has been demonstrated in a variety of fields, this method has never been applied to decision support in biosurveillance.We have developed a formalized decision support analytic framework that can facilitate identification of "essential information" for use in biosurveillance systems or processes and we offer this framework to the global BSV community as a tool for optimizing the BSV enterprise. To demonstrate utility, we applied the framework to the problem of evaluating data streams for use in an integrated global infectious disease surveillance system.
| S-EPMC3906072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To advance the development of an ideal and sustainable framework agreement for the public procurement of vaccines in Spain, and to agree on the desirable award criteria and their relative weight. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of seven health-care professionals and managers developed a partial multi-criteria decision analysis to determine the award criteria that should be considered and their specific weights for the public procurement of routine vaccines and seasonal influenza vaccines, considering their legal viability. A re-test of the results was carried out. The current situation was analyzed through 118 tender specifications and compared to the ideal framework. Results: Price is the prevailing award criterion for the public procurement of both routine (weighting of 60% versus 40% for all other criteria) and influenza (36% versus 64%) vaccines. Ideally, 22 criteria should be considered for routine vaccines, grouped and weighted into five domains: efficacy (weighting of 29%), economic aspects (27%), vaccine characteristics (22%), presentation form and packaging (13%), and others (9%). Per criteria set, price was the most important criterion (22%), followed by effectiveness (9%), and composition/formulation (7%). Regarding influenza vaccines, 20 criteria were selected, grouped, and weighted: efficacy (29%), economic aspects (25%), vaccine characteristics (20%), presentation form and packaging (16%), and others (11%). Per criteria set, price was also the most relevant criterion (19%), followed by composition/formulation (8%), and effectiveness (8%). Conclusions: Contrary to the current approach, technical award criteria should prevail over economic criteria in an ideal and sustainable framework agreement for the public procurement of vaccines.
| S-EPMC7733903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study is aimed toward establishing a decision-making model with multiple criteria for appraisal and reimbursement to compare the attitudes of different stakeholders toward various dimensions and criteria and to evaluate the five targeted therapies (bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, aflibercept, and regorafenib) for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHOD:This study is a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using a model that includes three dimensions and nine criteria. Both the overall and individual scores of the respective targeted therapies in different dimensions and criteria were calculated. A sensitivity analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the robustness of the research results. An interview-based questionnaire survey was applied to obtain the performance information for the targeted therapies and the weights of the dimensions and criteria. RESULTS:Overall, the clinical dimension had the highest weight, followed by the economic dimension, and finally, the social dimension. In the clinical dimension, the "comparative efficacy" criterion had the highest weight; in the economic dimension, the "cost-effectiveness" criterion" was given the greatest importance; in the social dimension, the "social concern and patient needs" criterion was given more emphasis. The overall values ranked from high to low as follows: cetuximab (overall score 3.3666), bevacizumab (3.3043), panitumumab (3.2030), aflibercept (2.8923) and regorafenib (2.8366). CONCLUSIONS:A comprehensive value assessment system combining "multi-dimensional criteria," "multi-perspectives," and an "integrative assessment" is necessary to evaluate the value of medicines. The results showed not only the order of weights of different dimensions or criteria, but also the rankings of the value of the targeted therapies.
| S-EPMC6907782 | biostudies-literature