Comparison of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Impact of CYP2C19 gene polymorphisms on warfarin dose requirement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Various genetic factors influence warfarin maintenance dose. Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, and a meta-analysis to analyze the impact of CYP2C19 polymorphisms on warfarin maintenance dose was conducted. Results: From nine studies encompassing 1393 patients, three CYP2C19 SNPs were identified: rs4244285, rs4986893 and rs3814637. Warfarin maintenance dose was significantly reduced by 10% in individuals with the rs4986893 A allele compared with the GG carriers and was 34%, 16% and 18% lower in patients with rs3814637 TT and CT genotypes and T allele, respectively, than that in CC carriers. No significant dose difference was observed among the rs4244285 genotypes. Conclusion: CYP2C19 rs4986893 and rs3814637 are associated with significantly reduced warfarin dose requirements.

Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature

A favorable benefit–risk profile remains an essential requirement for marketing authorization of medicinal drugs and devices. Furthermore, prior subjective, implicit and inconsistent ad hoc benefit–risk assessment methods have rightly evolved towards more systematic, explicit or “structured” approaches. Contemporary structured benefit–risk evaluation aims at providing an objective assessment of the benefit–risk profile of medicinal products and a higher transparency for decision making purposes. The use of a descriptive framework should be the preferred starting point for a structured benefit–risk assessment. In support of more precise assessments, quantitative and semi-quantitative methodologies have been developed and utilized to complement descriptive or qualitative frameworks in order to facilitate the structured evaluation of the benefit–risk profile of medicinal products. In addition, quantitative structured benefit–risk analysis allows integration of patient preference data. Collecting patient perspectives throughout the medical product development process has become increasingly important and key to the regulatory decision-making process. Both industry and regulatory authorities increasingly rely on descriptive structured benefit–risk evaluation and frameworks in drug, vaccine and device evaluation and comparison. Although varied qualitative methods are more commonplace, quantitative approaches have recently been emphasized. However, it is unclear how frequently these quantitative frameworks have been used by pharmaceutical companies to support submission dossiers for drug approvals or to respond to the health authorities’ requests. The objective of this study has been to identify and review, for the first time, currently available, published, structured, quantitative benefit–risk evaluations which may have informed health care professionals and/or payor as well as contributed to decision making purposes in the regulatory setting for drug, vaccine and/or device approval.

Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data.

METHODS

The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.

RESULTS

Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

[Oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: differential therapy with non vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA)]

BACKGROUND

Non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have changed the management of patients with oral anticoagulation. This raises the question of which patients should preferably be anticoagulated with NOAC and which preferably with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). This discussion has so far been insufficiently conducted and often decided on a flat-rate basis in favor of the NOAC.

METHOD

To clarify the question owhich form of anticoagulation - NOAC or VKA - is the best choice for patients with atrial fibrillation, an interdisciplinary team of experts met.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The experts discussed essential practical aspects of NOAC and VKA therapy. Based on typical clinical scenarios, they developed assistance, comments and tips on the differentiated use of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. A criteria served amongst others practicability in daily medical practice, contraindications, side effects and interactions, but also the patient's desire. The advantages and disadvantages of therapy with VKA and NOAC were summarized in a table.

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.