[Classification and variability of drug assessment reports on the GENESIS group (SEFH) webpage]

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Drug assessment by a Pharmacy and Therapeutics committee: from drug selection criteria to use in clinical practice

Background

In Spain, hospital medicines are assessed and selected by local Pharmacy and Therapeutics committees (PTCs). Of all the drugs assessed, cancer drugs are particularly important because of their budgetary impact and the sometimes arguable added value with respect to existing alternatives. This study analyzed the PTC drug selection process and the main objective was to evaluate the degree of compliance of prescriptions for oncology drugs with their criteria for use.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study (May 2007 to April 2010) of PTC-assessed drugs. The variables measured to describe the committee’s activity were number of drugs assessed per year and number of drugs included in any of these settings: without restrictions, with criteria for use, and not included in formulary. These drugs were also analyzed by therapeutic group. To assess the degree of compliance of prescriptions, a score was calculated to determine whether prescriptions for bevacizumab, cetuximab, trastuzumab, and bortezomib were issued in accordance with PTC drug use criteria.

Results

The PTC received requests for inclusion of 40 drugs, of which 32 were included in the hospital formulary (80.0%). Criteria for use were established for 28 (87.5%) of the drugs included. In total, 293 patients were treated with the four cancer drugs in eight different therapeutic indications. The average prescription compliance scores were as follows: bevacizumab, 83% for metastatic colorectal cancer, 100% for metastatic breast cancer, and 82.3% for non-small-cell lung cancer; cetuximab, 62.0% for colorectal cancer and 50% for head and neck cancer; trastuzumab, 95.1% for early breast cancer and 82.4% for metastatic breast cancer; and bortezomib, 63.7% for multiple myeloma.

Conclusion

The degree of compliance with criteria for use of cancer drugs was reasonably high. PTC functions need to be changed so that they can carry out more innovative tasks, such as monitoring conditions for drug use.

[Off-label approval of drug use in a tertiary hospital]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (PTC) evaluates the requests for off-label uses with an abbreviated report format. The aim of this study is to perform a descriptive analysis of this activity and to study the rate of approvals.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A descriptive study was performed on the PTC reports in a tertiary hospital between September 2009 and April 2011. The type of drug by treatment group and by type of dispensing, indication and requesting department was analysed. The final decision adopted was studied as the primary outcome, and the percentage of requests approved according to the characteristics of the drug evaluated, indication requested, alternatives used, evidence and cost, as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 51 applications were analysed, of which 60.8% were drugs for hospital use and 54.9% cytostatic. The most requested indications were the onco-haematological (43.2%) and autoimmune (35.3%). Haematology was the department that made most requests (11 requests with 72.7% approved), Oncology and Paediatrics (both with 10 requests, with 50% approved). Almost two-thirds (60.8%) of the requests were approved. Of those that were not approved, 11 had not used up the therapeutic alternatives, and 8 had no evidence. Just under half (47.1%) of the drugs requested had a cost/patient between 10,000-100,000 euros,of which 58.3% were approved (cost per course of treatment if it had a defined period, or cost of treatment per year for chronic treatment).

CONCLUSION

There is an increase in the activity of the PTC that is growing over the years. Most applications focus on drugs for hospital use and cytostatic drugs by Onco-haematology. There is a high rate of approval by the PTC, and high variability in the percentage of approval depending on the department and the evidence of use. The difference between approved and unapproved requests followed a logic of cost-effectiveness.