Evaluation of COPD Treatments: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Aclidinium and Tiotropium in the United States

Using a Patient-Centered Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Assess the Value of Multiple Sclerosis Treatments in the US: A Study Protocol

OBJECTIVE

The engagement of patients and family caregivers in value assessment is pivotal since they provide valuable contributions to assessment acceptability and relevance. The proposed study aims to use patient-centered techniques and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate the values of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) from the perspectives of patients and family caregivers living in three 'Deep South' States of the US-Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

METHODS

This study will follow guidance from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) for patient engagement and two best practice reports for MCDA from the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) to complete value assessment. Throughout the study, we will engage multiple stakeholders, including patients, family caregivers, healthcare providers, and payers. Forty patients with MS and their family caregivers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be invited to participate in this study. We will intensively train them for value assessment knowledge and MCDA before we engage them in MCDA to determine the value of DMTs for MS.

DISCUSSIONS

Our approach differs from common MCDA since we incorporated a patient-centered framework in this study. Unlike previous studies only briefly inform or prepare participants before the MCDA process, in this study, we will provide basic value assessment trainings for patients and family caregivers to ensure they can effectively engage throughout the patient-centered MCDA process. We expect this study will demonstrate that the patient-centered MCDA approach is feasible and likely leads to improved patients' and family caregivers' engagement in value assessment.

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.

Development and Practical Application of a Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework on Respiratory Inhalers: Is It Always Useful in the MOH Malaysia Medicines Formulary Listing Context?

Objectives. The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. Methods. The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. Results. A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, "patient suitability" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. Conclusions. Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.

Can We Incorporate Societal Values in Resource Allocation Decisions Among Disease Categories? An Empirical Approach

OBJECTIVES

Historically, resource allocation decisions in healthcare are based on univariate approaches, inevitably overlooking value dimensions that are essential from a societal welfare maximization perspective. This article aims to present a wider perspective on decision making that incorporates societal values when prioritizing future resource allocation among disease areas.

METHODS

Sociotechnical application of multiple-criteria decision analysis with a set of criteria (value judgments) that are based on positive as well as normative dimensions of resource allocation. We use Greece as a case study. Societal value judgments were sourced via a multidisciplinary panel of experts who collectively provided criteria weights and scores for each alternative (16 disease categories, classified according to the Global Burden of Disease study) against each criterion. An additive value function provided the total value in priority preference for each alternative.

RESULTS

The criteria that were deemed relevant to the decision-making process and their respective relative weights were burden of disease (0.245), capacity to benefit (0.190), direct cost and projected changes in the next 5 years (0.160), indirect cost (0.132), intensity of unmet needs (0.109), incidence of catastrophic expenditure (0.091), and caring externalities (0.073). The additive value function revealed that the top 5 priorities in highest total value scores were neoplasms, circulatory diseases, injuries, neurologic diseases, and musculoskeletal diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of societal value criteria in resource allocation decisions can highlight priorities and lead to different sets of planning decisions than solely demand-driven allocation.

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.

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.

Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit-Risk Decisions

Benefit-risk assessment is used in various phases along the drug lifecycle, such as marketing authorization and surveillance, health technology assessment (HTA), and clinical decisions, to understand whether, and for which patients, a drug has a favorable or more valuable profile with reference to one or more comparators. Such assessments are inherently preference-based as several clinical and nonclinical outcomes of varying importance might act as evaluation criteria, and decision makers must establish acceptable trade-offs between these outcomes. Different healthcare stakeholder perspectives, such as those from patients and healthcare professionals, are key for informing benefit-risk trade-offs. However, the degree to which such preferences inform the decision is often unclear as formal preference-based evaluation frameworks are generally not used for regulatory decisions, and, if used, rarely communicated in HTA decisions. We argue that for better decisions, as well as for reasons of transparency, preferences in benefit-risk decisions should more often be quantified and communicated explicitly.

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.

Magnetic Combined Cross-Linked Enzyme Aggregates of Ketoreductase and Alcohol Dehydrogenase: An Efficient and Stable Biocatalyst for Asymmetric Synthesis of (R)-3-Quinuclidinol with Regeneration of Coenzymes In Situ

Enzymes are biocatalysts. In this study, a novel biocatalyst consisting of magnetic combined cross-linked enzyme aggregates (combi-CLEAs) of 3-quinuclidinone reductase (QNR) and glucose dehydrogenase (GDH) for enantioselective synthesis of (R)-3-quinuclidinolwith regeneration of cofactors in situ was developed. The magnetic combi-CLEAs were fabricated with the use of ammonium sulfate as a precipitant and glutaraldehyde as a cross-linker for direct immobilization of QNR and GDH from E. coli BL(21) cell lysates onto amino-functionalized Fe3O4 nanoparticles. The physicochemical properties of the magnetic combi-CLEAs were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and magnetic measurements. Field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) images revealed a spherical structure with numerous pores which facilitate the movement of the substrates and coenzymes. Moreover, the magnetic combi-CLEAs exhibited improved operational and thermal stability, enhanced catalytic performance for transformation of 3-quinuclidinone (33 g/L) into (R)-3-quinuclidinol in 100% conversion yield and 100% enantiomeric excess (ee) after 3 h of reaction. The activity of the biocatalysts was preserved about 80% after 70 days storage and retained more than 40% of its initial activity after ten cycles. These results demonstrated that the magnetic combi-CLEAs, as cost-effective and environmentally friendly biocatalysts, were suitable for application in synthesis of (R)-3-quinuclidinol essential for the production of solifenacin and aclidinium with better performance than those currently available.

The discovery and development of aclidinium bromide for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Bronchodilators, including long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs), are a mainstay of the pharmacological treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). LAMAs act as bronchodilators principally by antagonizing airway smooth muscle cells M₃ muscarinic receptors. Aclidinium bromide is a twice-daily LAMA which was developed to improve on the efficacy and/or safety of previous LAMAs. Area covered: Herein, the authors present the pharmacotherapeutic role of aclidinium in COPD and point out unmet need in this research area. The following aspects are covered: a) the discovery and medicinal chemistry of aclidinium bromide; b) an overview of the market; c) its mechanism of action; d) its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile derived from pre-clinical studies; e) the clinical studies which led to its licensing; f) the evidence from meta-analyses; g) the aclidinium/formoterol fixed dose combination for COPD and h) priorities in this area of research. Expert opinion: Aclidinium bromide has the pharmacological properties, safety and efficacy profile and inhaler characteristics which makes it a valuable therapeutic option for pharmacological management of patients with COPD. Due to its rapid biotransformation into inactive metabolites, aclidinium is potentially one of the safest LAMAs. Further head-to-head randomized clinical trials are required to define efficacy and safety of aclidinium when compared to once-daily LAMAs. The clinical relevance of airway anti-remodeling effects of aclidinium has to be defined.