Dataset Information

Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Zozaya N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5990558 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

Zozaya Néboa N Martínez-Galdeano Lucía L Alcalá Bleric B Armario-Hita Jose Carlos JC Carmona Concepción C Carrascosa Jose Manuel JM Herranz Pedro P Lamas María Jesús MJ Trapero-Bertran Marta M Hidalgo-Vega Álvaro Á

BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy 20180601 3

<h4>Background and objective</h4>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.<h4>Method</h4>Following the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcision Making) methodology, the estimated value of both interventions was obtained by m ...[more]

PMID: 29808418

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.

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.

Project description:Background and objectiveChronic cough is defined as cough lasting for more than 8 weeks. It can be described as refractory when persisting despite thorough clinical assessment and treatment of any cough-related underlying condition, or unexplained when no underlying cough-related condition can be identified. Refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC|UCC) greatly affects patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although around 10% of the population suffer from chronic cough (with 40-60% of these patients suffering from RCC|UCC), there is limited information available in the literature about the condition and the assessment of treatment success. This study aimed to determine what represents value in the treatment of RCC|UCC from the perspective of key stakeholders in Spain using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.MethodsA literature review was conducted to adapt the MCDA framework to the specific context of RCC|UCC. A total of 24 participants were involved, representing three key stakeholder groups (7 patients, 9 physicians and 8 hospital pharmacists). The study was structured in two phases. In Phase 1, participants validated the adapted MCDA framework and assigned relative weights (100-point allocation) to the framework's value criteria/sub-criteria during three individual stakeholder meetings, one per each stakeholder group. In Phase 2, participants were brought together in a multi-stakeholder meeting to review findings of each stakeholder group, after which stakeholders repeated the weighting exercise as a collective group. All meetings included reflective discussion by participants of each value criteria/sub-criteria included within the adapted MCDA framework, where stakeholders shared their perspectives and opinions on what represents value in RCC|UCC.ResultsRefractory or unexplained chronic cough is regarded as a chronic medical condition, with variable severity across patients and the potential to heavily impact their HRQoL (including physical, psychological and social/work productivity domains). Current treatments used by healthcare professionals, which have not been specifically developed and are not approved for RCC|UCC, show limited clinical effectiveness and associated safety and tolerability issues, which result in frequent treatment discontinuations. The reduction of the average cough frequency over a 24-h period is regarded as the primary goal of treatment by stakeholders, with the aim of improving HRQoL. Improvement of other cough symptoms, such as intensity, is also considered important. Minor adverse events and a slower onset of treatment effect would be acceptable to stakeholders if accompanied by strong efficacy and improvement in HRQoL. Given the inability to measure cough frequency in clinical practice, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) could be considered a proxy of treatment effectiveness. A multidisciplinary approach to the condition is regarded as key for treatment success.ConclusionsRefractory or unexplained chronic cough is a medical condition that seriously impacts patients' HRQoL. The primary goal of treatment is to improve patients' HRQoL by reducing the frequency and intensity of cough.

Dataset Information

Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

Publications

Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets