Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for HTA across four EU Member States: Piloting the Advance Value Framework

Value Framework Based on Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment of New Health Technologies Under Universal Healthcare Coverage System in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

Given the lack of a value framework for assessing health technologies in Asian settings, a value framework incorporating multiple-criteria decision analysis for new drugs under universal healthcare coverage in Taiwan was established.

METHODS

The development process included (1) the adoption of 5 value domains (ie, Overall clinical benefit, Disease burden, Alignment with patient concerns, Economic value, and Feasibility of adoption into the health system) and 26 corresponding indicators, derived from the literature and expert discussions; (2) the creation of separate weighting schemes for 3 drug types-new oncology, new orphan, and other new drugs-based on inputs from multiple stakeholders (n = 86) using various weighting methods; and (3) the application of the value framework to cases of new oncology drugs.

RESULTS

Overall clinical benefit had the highest preference weight, irrespective of drug type, (ie, mean values [95% CIs] for new oncology, new orphan, and other new drugs: 32.5 [30.4-34.6], 30.6 [28.1-33.1], and 30.6 [28.7-32.6], respectively), weighting method, and stakeholder type. The 5 domain-derived weights (from the point allocation method) were comparable to the 26 indicator-derived weights (from the direct rating method), suggesting that the value framework with a short-form (domain-derived) weighting scheme is sufficient to support decision making under time and resource constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

A country-specific value framework incorporating multiple-criteria decision analysis for new drugs was developed in an Asian setting under universal healthcare coverage. It allows multiple stakeholders to systematically appraise all drug value attributes and provides a structured process for adapting and refining value assessments.

The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review

Objectives: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing attention in supporting drug risk-benefit assessment, pricing and reimbursement, as well as optimization of clinical interventions. The objective of this study was to systematically collect and categorize evaluation criteria and techniques of weighting and scoring of MCDA for drug value assessment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases to identify articles utilizing the MCDA frameworks for the evaluation of drug value. Evaluation criteria mentioned in the included studies were extracted and assigned to 5 dimensions including clinical, economic, innovative, societal and humanistic value. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the identified drug value evaluation criteria, as well as the weighting and scoring techniques employed. The more a criterion or technique were mentioned in articles, the more important we consider it. Results: Out of the 82 articles included, 111 unique criteria were identified to evaluate the value of drug. Among the 56 unique criteria (448 times) used to measure clinical value, the most frequently mentioned were "comparative safety/tolerability" (58 times), "comparative effectiveness/efficacy" (56 times), "comparative patient-perceived health/patient reported outcomes" (37 times), "disease severity" (34 times), and "unmet needs" (25 times). Regarding economic value measurement, out of the 20 unique criteria (124 times), the most frequently utilized criteria were "cost of intervention" (17 times), "comparative other medical costs" (16 times), and "comparative non-medical costs" (18 times). Out of the 10 criteria (18 times) for assessing innovative value, "a novel pharmacological mechanism" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (5 times). Among the 22 criteria (73 times) used to measure societal value, "system capacity and appropriate use of intervention" was the most frequently cited criterion (14 times). Out of the 3 criteria (15 times) utilized to measure humanistic value, "political/historical/cultural context" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (9 times). Furthermore, 11 scoring and 11 weighting techniques were found from various MCDA frameworks. "Swing weighting" and "a direct rating scale" were the most frequently used techniques in included articles. Conclusion: This study comprehensively presented the current evaluation dimensions, criteria, and techniques for scoring and weighting in drug-oriented MCDA articles. By highlighting the frequently cited evaluation criteria and techniques for scoring and weighting, this analysis will provide a foundation to reasonably select appropriate evaluation criteria and technique in constructing the MCDA framework that aligns with research objectives.

Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.

Scoring the Value Assessment Framework for China: A Factorial Survey

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop the scoring functions for the recently developed value assessment framework (VAF) for China, which comprises 12 attributes.

METHODS

We implemented a factorial survey among Chinese healthcare stakeholders from July to September 2022. A total of 240 hypothetical drug value profiles described by the VAF were grouped into 60 blocks and randomly assigned to respondents. Each respondent was assigned with 1 block, each presented in 3 disease scenarios of different levels of severity. For each profile, respondents were asked to assess the drug's value on a scale from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) and make 1 of the 3 insurance recommendations: cover, to be negotiated for coverage, or reject. Linear and logistic mixed-effects models were used to develop scoring functions for aggregating the value attributes.

RESULTS

A total of 365 respondents participated in the survey. 3968 responses from 331 respondents were included in the analysis. Most of the included respondents were under 45 (n = 256, 77.3%), females (n = 208, 62.8%), living in urban areas (n = 296, 89.4%), and with a bachelor's degree or higher (n = 303, 91.5%). Health benefits and safety carried more weights than other attributes in the scoring functions across disease scenarios. The value and probability of entering negotiation or receiving insurance coverage for the attribute profiles for severe/critical disease were higher than for mild/moderate disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoring functions of the VAF can be used to assess the value of a drug and its probability of entering negotiation or receiving insurance coverage in China.

Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of guidance on approaches to formulary management and funding for high-cost drugs and therapeutics by individual healthcare institutions. The objective of this review was to assess institutional approaches to resource allocation for such therapeutics, with a particular focus on paediatric and rare disease populations.

METHODS

A search of Embase and MEDLINE was conducted for studies relevant to decision-making for off-formulary, high-cost drugs and therapeutics. Abstracts were evaluated for inclusion based on the Simple Multiple-Attribute Rating Techniques (SMART) criteria. A framework of 30 topics across 4 categories was used to guide data extraction and was based on findings from the initial abstract review and previous health technology assessment (HTA) publications. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using QSR NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

A total of 168 studies were included for analysis. Only 4 (2%) focused on paediatrics, while 21 (12%) centred on adults and the remainder (85%) did not specify. Thirty-two (19%) studies discussed the importance of high-cost therapeutics and 34 (23%) focused on rare/orphan drugs. Five themes were identified as being relevant to institutional decision-making for high-cost therapeutics: institutional strategy, substantive criteria, procedural considerations, guiding principles and frameworks, and operational activities. Each of these themes encompassed several sub-themes and was complemented by a sixth category specific to paediatrics and rare diseases.

CONCLUSION

The rising cost of novel drugs and therapeutics underscores the need for robust, evidence-based, and ethically defensible decision-making processes for health technology funding, particularly at the hospital level. Our study highlights practices and themes to aid decision-makers in thinking critically about institutional, substantive, procedural, and operational considerations in support of legitimate decisions about institutional funding of high-cost drugs and therapeutics, as well as opportunities and challenges that exist for paediatric and rare disease populations.

Advancing hospital-based health technology assessment: evaluating genomic panel contracting strategies for blood tumors through a multimethodology

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of genomic technologies in the context of hospital-based health technology assessment presents multiple practical and organizational challenges.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assist the Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil (IPO Lisboa) decision makers in analyzing which acute myeloid leukemia (AML) genomic panel contracting strategies had the highest value-for-money.

METHODS

A tailored, three-step approach was developed, which included: mapping clinical pathways of AML patients, building a multicriteria value model using the MACBETH approach to evaluate each genomic testing contracting strategy, and estimating the cost of each strategy through Monte Carlo simulation modeling. The value-for-money of three contracting strategies - "Standard of care (S1)," "FoundationOne Heme test (S2)," and "New diagnostic test infrastructure (S3)" - was then analyzed through strategy landscape and value-for-money graphs.

RESULTS

Implementing a larger gene panel (S2) and investing in a new diagnostic test infrastructure (S3) were shown to generate extra value, but also to entail extra costs in comparison with the standard of care, with the extra value being explained by making available additional genetic information that enables more personalized treatment and patient monitoring (S2 and S3), access to a broader range of clinical trials (S2), and more complete databases to potentiate research (S3).

CONCLUSION

The proposed multimethodology provided IPO Lisboa decision makers with comprehensive and insightful information regarding each strategy's value-for-money, enabling an informed discussion on whether to move from the current Strategy S1 to other competing strategies.

Defining 'therapeutic value' of medicines: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, discussions on the importance and scope of therapeutic value of new medicines have intensified, stimulated by the increase of prices and number of medicines entering the market. This study aims to perform a scoping review identifying factors contributing to the definition of the therapeutic value of medicines.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Business Source Premier, EconLit, Regional Business News, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scope and Pool databases through December 2020 in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that included determinants for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted using the mentioned data sources. Two reviewers independently screened and analysed the articles. Data were analysed from April 2021 to May 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 1883 studies screened, 51 were selected and the identified factors contributing to the definition of therapeutic value of medicines were classified in three categories: patient perspective, public health perspective and socioeconomic perspective. More than three-quarters of the included studies were published after 2014, with the majority of the studies focusing on either cancer disorders (14 of 51, 27.5%) or rare diseases (11 of 51, 21.6%). Frequently mentioned determinants for value were quality of life, therapeutic alternatives and side effects (all patient perspective), prevalence/incidence and clinical endpoints (all public health perspective), and costs (socioeconomic perspective).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple determinants have been developed to define the therapeutic value of medicines, most of them focusing on cancer disorders and rare diseases. Considering the relevance of value of medicines to guide patients and physicians in decision-making as well as policymakers in resource allocation decisions, a development of evidence-based factors for the definition of therapeutic value of medicines is needed across all therapeutic areas.

Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain

Introduction

Even using well-established technology assessment processes, the basis of the decisions on drug price and reimbursement are sometimes perceived as poorly informed and sometimes may be seen as disconnected from value. The literature remains inconclusive about how Health Technology Assessment Bodies (HTAb) should report the determinants of their decisions. This study evaluates the relationship between oncology and hematology drug list prices and structured value parameters at the time of reimbursement decision in Spain.

Methods

The study includes all new onco-hematological products (22), with a first indication authorized between January 2017 and December 2019 in Spain and pricing decisions published up until October 2022. For each product, 56 contextual and non-contextual indicators reflecting the structured multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) - Evidence-based Decision-Making (EVIDEM) framework were measured. The relationship between prices and the MCDA-EVIDEM framework was explored using univariate statistical analyses.

Results

Higher prices were observed when the standard of care included for combinations, if there were references to long-lasting responses, for fixed-duration treatment compared to treatment until progression and treatment with lower frequencies of administration; lower prices were observed for oral administration compared to other routes of administration. Statistically significant associations were observed between prices and the median duration of treatment, the impact on patient autonomy, the ease of use of the drug, and the recommendations of experts.

Discussion

The study suggests that indicators related to the type of standard of care, references to long-lasting responders, the convenience of the use of the drug, and the impact of treatment on patient autonomy, as well as contextual indicators such as the existence of previous clinical consensus, are factors in setting oncology drug prices in Spain. The implementation of MCDA-EVIDEM methodologies may be useful to capture the influence on pricing decisions of additional factors not included in legislation or consolidated assessment frameworks such as the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EunetHTA) core model. It may be opportune to consider this in the upcoming revision of the Spanish regulation for health technology assessments and pricing and reimbursement procedures.

Value elements and methods of value-based pricing for drugs in Japan: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based pricing (VBP) can be a promising tool for optimizing drug prices. However, there is no consensus on the specific value elements and pricing method that should be used for VBP.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the value elements and pricing method for VBP. The main inclusion criterion was that value elements, VBP method, and estimated prices for actual drugs were reported. We performed a search in MEDLINE and ICHUSHI Web. Eight articles met the selection criteria. Four studies adopted the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) approach and the others used different approaches. The CEA approach included the value elements of productivity, value of hope, real option value, disease severity, insurance value in addition to costs and quality-adjusted life years. The other approaches used efficacy, toxicity, novelty, rarity, research and development costs, prognosis, population health burden, unmet needs, and effectiveness. Each study used individual methods to quantify these broader value elements.

EXPERT OPINION

Both conventional and broader value elements are used for VBP. To allow VBP to be widely applied to various diseases, a simple, versatile method is preferable. Further research is needed to establish VBP method which enables to incorporate broader values.

The Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Decision Making in Healthcare: An Updated Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used for decision making in healthcare. However, its application in different decision-making contexts is still unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of MCDA studies performed to inform decisions in healthcare and to summarize its application in different decision contexts.

METHODS

We updated a systematic review conducted in 2013 by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for MCDA studies in healthcare, published in English between August 2013 and November 2020. We also expanded the search by reviewing grey literature found via Trip Medical Database and Google, published between January 1990 and November 2020. A comprehensive template was developed to extract information about the decision context, criteria, methods, stakeholders involved, and sensitivity analyses conducted.

RESULTS

From the 4295 identified studies, 473 studies were eligible for full-text review after assessing titles and abstracts. Of those, 228 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. The use of MCDA continues to grow in healthcare literature, with most of the studies (49%) informing priority-setting decisions. Safety, cost, and quality of care delivery are the most frequently used criteria, although there are considerable differences across decision contexts. Almost half of the MCDA studies used the linear additive model whereas scales and the analytical hierarchy process were the most used techniques for scoring and weighting, respectively. Not all studies report on each one of the MCDA steps, consider axiomatic properties, or justify the methods used.

CONCLUSIONS

A guide on how to conduct and report MCDA that acknowledges the particularities of the different decision contexts and methods needs to be developed.

Identifying Attributes for a Value Assessment Framework in China: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Value assessment frameworks (VAFs) are promising tools for measuring the value of health technologies and informing coverage policymaking; however, most published VAFs were developed for high-income countries. This study aimed to identify value attributes as part of the development of a VAF in China.

METHODS

We used the qualitative description approach. Specifically, we conducted open-ended semi-structured interviews with Chinese stakeholders, as well as a review and analysis of publicly available government documents related to health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage policies in China. Conventional content analysis and the constant comparison technique were used to generate value attributes. Multiple criteria were used to determine the inclusion of a value attribute, with response levels of included attributes finalized via consensus meetings among the research team.

RESULTS

Thirty-four stakeholders living or working in China completed the semi-structured interview. These stakeholders included policymakers (n = 4), healthcare providers (n = 8), HTA researchers (n = 6), patients and members of the general public (n = 9), and industry representatives (n = 7). In addition, 16 government documents were included for analysis. Twelve value attributes grouped in eight categories are included in the VAF: (1) severity of disease; (2) health benefit, including survival, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes; (3) safety; (4) economic impact, including budget impact to payer and patients, and cost effectiveness; (5) innovation; (6) organizational impact; (7) health equity; and (8) quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

These 12 value attributes were identified for the development of a VAF to support health technologies' value assessment and coverage policymaking in China.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

Supporting Innovation in Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Development Decisions

Pharmaceutical companies have frequent portfolio reviews to monitor development progress and prioritize development assets. The earliest assets are drug candidates whose efficacy is unknown and whose effects on the human body have yet to be fully investigated. These assets are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty in reaching the market and in being used in clinical practice. In addition, not all potential applications are foreseen and can often be very different. In the absence of satisfactory methods for making decisions on resource allocation among early development assets, decision makers focus almost exclusively on assessments of an asset’s probability of technical success. This study proposes a more holistic methodology to support early-stage pharmaceutical development decisions using value-focused thinking and multicriteria decision making. The methodology operates within the decision quality framework and provides a consistent evaluation of various early development assets across a diverse set of disease areas. This combination of concepts and methodologies has been implemented and proven valuable at Bayer Pharmaceuticals, which needed a new, more robust decision-making process for early development. Thus, this study discusses how to enable concrete trade-offs at the level of corporate objectives to align, communicate, and translate corporate strategy into portfolio strategy. In addition, this study presents learnings for decision analysts and decision makers in the pharmaceutical industry on how to develop a set of fundamental objectives, how to create scales to operationalize these objectives, and how to take steps to debias an organizational decision-making process.

How innovation can be defined, evaluated and rewarded in health technology assessment

BACKGROUND

What constitutes innovation in health technologies can be defined and measured in a number of ways and it has been widely researched and published about. However, while many countries mention it as a criterion for pricing or reimbursement of health technologies, countries differ widely in how they define and operationalise it.

METHODS

We performed a literature review, using a snowballing search. In this paper, we explore how innovation has been defined in the literature in relation to health technology assessment. We also describe how a selection of countries (England, France, Italy, Spain and Japan) take account of innovation in their health technology assessment frameworks and explore the key methodologies that can capture it as a dimension of value in a new health technology. We propose a way of coming to, and incorporating into health technology assessment systems, a definition of innovation for health technologies that is independent of other dimensions of value that they already account for in their systems, such as clinical benefit. We use Spain as an illustrative example of how innovation might be operationalised as a criterion for decision making in health technology assessment.

RESULTS

The countries analysed here can be divided into 2 groups with respect to how they define innovation. France, Japan and Italy use features such as severity, unmet need and therapeutic added value as indicators of the degree of innovation of a health technology, while England, Spain consider the degree of innovation as a separate and additional criterion from others. In the case of Spain, a notion of innovation might be constructed around concepts of `step-change', `convenience', `strength of evidence base' and `impact on future research & development'.

CONCLUSIONS

If innovation is to be used as operational criteria for adoption, pricing and reimbursement of health technologies, the concept must be clearly defined, and it ought to be independent from other value dimensions already captured in their health technology assessment systems.

Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been used to inform health decisions in health technology assessments (HTA) processes. This is particularly important to complex treatment decisions in oncology.

AREAS COVERED

Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched for studies comparing health technologies in oncology, involving the concept MCDA. The ISPOR MCDA Good Practices Guidelines were used to assess the reporting quality. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Fifteen studies were included. The main decision problem was related to health technology assessment of cancer treatments. Clinicians and public health experts were the most frequent stakeholders. The most frequently included criteria comprised therapeutic benefit, and socio-economic impact. Value measurement approach, direct rating techniques, and additive model for aggregation were used in most studies. Uncertainty analysis revealed the impact of posology and costs on the studies' results. All studies showed some level of overlapping decision criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

There is considerable diversity of methods in MCDA for healthcare decision-making in oncology. The evidence presented can serve as a resource when considering which stakeholders, criteria, and techniques to include in future MCDA studies in oncology.

Criteria and Scoring Functions Used in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis and Value Frameworks for the Assessment of Rare Disease Therapies: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the economic value of health technologies is assessed with cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) analyses. However, the evaluation of rare disease therapies often considers novel value criteria. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a promising tool in the assessment of value criteria that typically cannot be captured with traditional approaches.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this research was to investigate the criteria and scoring functions applied in value frameworks and MCDA tools relevant to the evaluation of rare disease therapies. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the domains and measurement of commonly referenced novel value criteria.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed covering the period from 2013 to 2019. MCDA or value framework articles and structured review papers on orphan-drug-specific MCDA articles were reviewed. Information sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and 26 other gray literature sources. A descriptive review of identified criteria and scoring functions was performed, with special focus on "novel" value criteria that are traditionally not considered in CE or BI analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 15 relevant value frameworks and MCDA tools were identified. These studies included a large number (n = 56) of individual value criteria. The most commonly included novel criteria were unmet medical need, severity of disease, and reduction in uncertainty. The identified scoring functions (measurement methods) for novel criteria were highly heterogeneous and tailored. Standardized scoring functions were not observed. Additionally, the studies did not provide their rationale for choosing a specific scoring function for a criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

MCDA is a promising tool to include novel value criteria into the health technology assessment of therapies for rare diseases. To support the development of a transparent and justified evaluation process, scoring functions should be further investigated.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

Efficacy, Safety, and Economics of Innovative Medicines: The Role of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Managed Entry Agreements in Practice and Policy

Through the years, solutions for accelerated access to innovative treatments are implemented in models of regulatory approvals, yet with limited data. Besides efficacy data, providing adequate safety data is key to transferring conditional marketing authorization to final marketing authorization. However, this remains a challenge because of the restricted availability and transferability of such data. Within this study, we set up a challenge to analyze the answers of two questions. First, from regulatory bodies' point of view, we bring the question of whether multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an adequate tool for further improvement of health technology assessment (HTA) of innovative medicines. Second, we ask if managed entry agreements (MEAs) pose solutions for facilitating the access to innovative medicines and further strengthening the evidence base concerning efficacy and effectiveness, as well as safety. Elaborating on such challenges brought us to conclude that increasing the attention to safety in MCDAs and MEAs will increase the trust of the authorities and improve the access for the manufacturers and the early availability of safe and effective medicines for the patients.

Potential approaches for the pricing of cancer medicines across Europe to enhance the sustainability of healthcare systems and the implications

Introduction: There are growing concerns among European health authorities regarding increasing prices for new cancer medicines, prices not necessarily linked to health gain and the implications for the sustainability of their healthcare systems.Areas covered: Narrative discussion principally among payers and their advisers regarding potential approaches to the pricing of new cancer medicines.Expert opinion: A number of potential pricing approaches are discussed including minimum effectiveness levels for new cancer medicines, managed entry agreements, multicriteria decision analyses (MCDAs), differential/tiered pricing, fair pricing models, amortization models as well as de-linkage models. We are likely to see a growth in alternative pricing deliberations in view of ongoing challenges. These include the considerable number of new oncology medicines in development including new gene therapies, new oncology medicines being launched with uncertainty regarding their value, and continued high prices coupled with the extent of confidential discounts for reimbursement. However, balanced against the need for new cancer medicines. This will lead to greater scrutiny over the prices of patent oncology medicines as more standard medicines lose their patent, calls for greater transparency as well as new models including amortization models. We will be monitoring these developments.

Multiple criteria decision analysis for medicine reimbursement in the Lebanese context

Objective

The objective of this exploratory analysis is to reflect and discuss which criteria of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) would be relevant as part of value determination when appraising healthcare interventions in the Lebanese context.

Methods

A workshop was conducted as part of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Lebanon Chapter and included the two frameworks: Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) and Advance Value Framework. Thirty-seven participants expressed their individual preferences through a qualitative and a quantitative exercise.

Results

In the qualitative analysis of both frameworks, participants unanimously agreed on the relevance of comparative efficacy, safety, and impact of medical costs. In EVIDEM, disease severity and unmet needs were also considered to be important criteria by more than 90 percent of the participants. In the quantitative analysis of both frameworks, disease severity ranked first (a mean normalized weight of .1 in EVIDEM and .27 in Advance Value Framework), followed by the size of the population (.09), the type of therapeutic benefit at the patient level (.09) and population level (.08), and the efficacy (.07) in EVIDEM. In the Advance Value Framework, the combined unmet need/disease severity criteria were followed by direct and meaningful end points (.15), safety (.12), contraindications (.08), and indirect surrogate end points (.07).

Conclusions

The results were concordant with those reported in countries that have conducted similar surveys such as France, Italy, and Spain. The MCDA methodology could be used as a cornerstone to enhance evidence-based discussions among Lebanese stakeholders involved in evaluation and decision-making purposes.

Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD.

Methods

We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework.

Results

Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration.

Conclusions

Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs.

Registration

PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049

Early Health Technology Assessment during Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Drug Development: A Two-Round, Cross-Country, Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Background. The assessment of value along the clinical development of new biopharmaceutical compounds is a challenging task. Complex and uncertain evidence has to be analyzed, considering a multitude of value preferences from different stakeholders. Objective. To investigate the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support decision making during drug development while considering payer and health technology assessment (HTA) value concerns, by applying the Advance Value Framework in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and testing for the consistency of the results. Design. A multiattribute value theory methodology was applied and 2 rounds of decision conferences (DCs) were organized in 3 countries (England, France, and Germany), with the participation of national key experts and stakeholders using the MACBETH questioning protocol and algorithm. A total of 51 health care professionals, patient advocates, and methodologists, including (ex-) committee members or assessors from national HTA bodies, participated in 6 DCs in the study countries. Target Population. NASH patients in fibrosis stages F2 to 3 were considered. Interventions. The value of a hypothetical product profile was assessed against 3 compounds under development using their phase 2 results. Outcome Measures. DC participants' value preferences were elicited involving criteria selection, options scoring, and criteria weighting. Results. Highly consistent valuation rankings were observed in all DCs, always favoring the same compound. Highly consistent rankings of criteria clusters were observed, favoring therapeutic benefit criteria, followed by safety profile and innovation level criteria. Limitations. There was a lack of comparative treatment effects, early evidence on surrogate endpoints was used, and stakeholder representativeness was limited in some DCs. Conclusions. The use of MCDA is promising in supporting early HTA, illustrating high consistency in results across countries and between study rounds.

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.