Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

A protocol for mobilising novel finance models for collaborative health promotion and disease prevention initiatives: taking a smart capacitating investment approach in the Invest4Health project

Background

The prevalence of preventable non-communicable disease (NCD) underpins the need for a life-course and cross-sectoral approach to population health that is grounded in health promotion and disease prevention. European Union (EU) countries typically spend 6 to 13% of gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, yet less than 3% of this is dedicated to prevention. The extent to which spending in other sectors prevents avoidable ill-health is largely unknown. The lack of fiscal space post-COVID-19 means shifting from models of care built around treatment to those with greater emphasis on prevention will require innovative, evidence-based investment within and between sectors. The term "smart capacitating investment" (SCI) has previously been used to understand how to best boost social infrastructure investment in education, health, transport and housing across the EU. Here we take that idea further by exploring the applicability of SCI to public health financing to improve population health and well-being.

Aim

To explore and develop innovative SCI models and tools that enable collaboration and investment across health ecosystems for enhanced health promotion and disease prevention, test them in diverse real-world settings, and create a roadmap for large-scale implementation.

Methods

The Invest4Health (I4H) project brings together transdisciplinary expertise in epidemiology, public health, health economics, population science, business management, finance, implementation and social sciences, digital health innovation, and regional health systems. The project consists of eight work packages which span the exploration and conceptualisation of SCI in public health; the characterisation of SCI-compatible business and finance models; piloting and evaluation of these models in four European testbeds (Sweden, Germany, Spain and Wales UK); and exploring the opportunities for sustainable replication and scaling of SCI and future research.

Discussion

We present an introduction to the I4H project, the concept of SCI applied to public health, plus key points for discussion internationally.

Development of a Prioritization Framework to Aid Healthcare Funding Decision Making in Health Technology Assessment in Australia: Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study develops a prioritization framework to aid healthcare funding decision making in health technology assessment (HTA) in Australia using a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach.

METHODS

MCDA frameworks for HTAs were reviewed through literature survey to identify the initial criteria and levels within each criterion. Key stakeholders and experts were consulted to confirm these criteria and levels. A conjoint analysis using 1000Minds was undertaken with policy makers from the Department of Health to establish ranking criteria and weighting scores. Monte Carlo simulations were used to examine the sensitivity of findings to factors affecting the ranking and weighting scores. The MCDA was then applied to 6 examples of chronic care models or technologies projects to demonstrate the performance of this approach.

RESULTS

Five criteria (clinical efficacy/effectiveness, safety and tolerability, severity of the condition, quality/uncertainty, and direct impact on healthcare costs) were consistently ranked highest by healthcare decision makers. Among the criteria, patient-level health outcomes were considered the most important, followed by social and ethical values. The analyses were robust to inform the uncertainty in the parameter.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has developed an MCDA tool that effectively integrates key priorities for HTA reviews, reflecting the values and preferences of healthcare stakeholders in Australia. Although this tool aims to align the assessment process more closely with health benefits, it also highlights the importance of considering other criteria.

Health technology assessment and innovation: here to help or hinder?

Innovative health technologies offer much to patients, clinicians, and health systems. Policy makers can, however, be slow to embrace innovation for many reasons, including a less robust body of evidence, perceived high costs, and a fear that once technologies enter the health system, they will be difficult to remove. Health technology funding decisions are usually made after a rigorous health technology assessment (HTA) process, including a cost analysis. However, by focusing on therapeutic value and cost-savings, the traditional HTA framework often fails to capture innovation in the assessment process. How HTA defines, evaluates, and values innovation is currently inconsistent, and it is generally agreed that by explicitly defining innovation would recognize and reward and, in turn, stimulate, encourage, and incentivize future innovation in the system. To foster innovation in health technology, policy needs to be innovative and utilize other HTA tools to inform decision making including horizon scanning, multicriteria decision analysis, and funding mechanisms such as managed agreements and coverage with evidence development. When properly supported and incentivized, and by shifting the focus from cost to investment, innovation in health technology such as genomics, point-of-care testing, and digital health may deliver better patient outcomes. Industry and agency members of the Health Technology Assessment International Asia Policy Forum (APF) met in Taiwan in November 2023 to discuss the potential of HTA to foster innovation, especially in the Asia region. Discussions and presentations during the 2023 APF were informed by a background paper, which forms the basis of this paper.

The value of the reflective discussion in decision-making using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): an example of determining the value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of the Epstein Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+ PTLD)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of the reflective multidisciplinary discussion in determining the value contribution of innovative drugs through the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This methodology considers all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a global, transparent, and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The determination of value contribution of tabelecleucel for the treatment of Epstein-Barr virus-positive post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV+ PTLD) compared to salvage therapy was used as an example.

RESULTS

Tabelecleucel obtained a value contribution score of 0.63 and increased to 0.75 after the reflective discussion. EBV+ PTLD was considered a life-threatening disease (5.0 ± 0.0), with a significant unmet need for an approved treatment (5.0 ± 0.0). Tabelecleucel was perceived as bringing improvements in terms of efficacy (4.2 ± 0.8) and safety (3.8 ± 0.8) compared to the salvage therapy. Most experts considered that the high efficacy and safety results could represent an improvement in the quality of life of patients (2.3 ± 1.2) along with savings in medical costs (2.3 ± 2.0) and non-medical costs (2.7 ± 1.6) compared to the salvage therapy. However, others emphasized the need of more evidence to confirm these improvements and savings over time. Tabelecleucel was regarded as potentially modifying the clinical course of the disease (4.3 ± 0.8) and supported by high-quality evidence (3.2 ± 0.4). All contextual criteria were valued highly positively for tabelecleucel. "Safety/Tolerability" and "Other medical costs" were the criteria that experienced the highest change in the re-test conducted after the reflective discussion. The reflective discussion allowed resolving doubts or misinterpretations of the experts, so the re-test obtained more accurate and consistent results of the value contribution of tabelecleucel.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that the MCDA methodology is a useful tool for decision-making on innovative treatments for the management of rare diseases. It also highlights the importance of reflective multidisciplinary discussion for its ability to resolve doubts or misinterpretations of experts, subsequently allowing to obtain more consistent and reliable results on the value contribution of the drug, being potentially more positive.

Design of a multiple criteria decision analysis framework for prioritizing high-impact health technologies in a regional health service

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to develop a framework for establishing priorities in the regional health service of Murcia, Spain, to facilitate the creation of a comprehensive multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework. This framework will aid in decision-making processes related to the assessment, reimbursement, and utilization of high-impact health technologies.

METHOD

Based on the results of a review of existing frameworks for MCDA of health technologies, a set of criteria was proposed to be used in the context of evaluating high-impact health technologies. Key stakeholders within regional healthcare services, including clinical leaders and management personnel, participated in a focus group (n = 11) to discuss the proposed criteria and select the final fifteen. To elicit the weights of the criteria, two surveys were administered, one to a small sample of healthcare professionals (n = 35) and another to a larger representative sample of the general population (n = 494).

RESULTS

The responses obtained from health professionals in the weighting procedure exhibited greater consistency compared to those provided by the general public. The criteria more highly weighted were "Need for intervention" and "Intervention outcomes." The weights finally assigned to each item in the multicriteria framework were derived as the equal-weighted sum of the mean weights from the two samples.

CONCLUSIONS

A multi-attribute function capable of generating a composite measure (multicriteria) to assess the value of high-impact health interventions has been developed. Furthermore, it is recommended to pilot this procedure in a specific decision context to evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, usefulness, and reliability of the proposed tool.

Synthesis of relevant information around non-core domains to support Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for decision making

Countries fundamentally base macro and micro decision making in the field of health on economic considerations, the budgetary impact of technologies being a major criterion. Nevertheless, the value of the technology of interest and its dimensions are more complex if we seek to take decisions based on the value itself. The use of structured and explicit approaches that require the assessment of multiple criteria that reflect the dimensions of this value may significantly improve the quality of the decision making. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a complementary decision-making tool that is able to systematically incorporate dimensions or domains such as ethical, organisational, legal, environmental and social considerations, as well as costs and benefits of medical interventions, together with the distinct perspectives of the interested parties. The objective of this article is to propose the implementation of analysis of non-core domains, in reports of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies/units. To assess the scientific evidence on MCDA techniques a systematic review was conducted using structured searches in biomedical databases and websites of various HTA organisations. A consensus group was held using the nominal group technique and involving users of healthcare services, providers, managers and academics. Complementary, a survey was sent to HTA agencies to ascertain the degree of implementation of MCDA in their methods. 42 articles reporting the use of non-core criteria for the assessment of health technologies were included in the analysis. From these articles, a total of 216 non-core criteria were retrieved and categorised into domains by the researchers, and of these, 56 were classified as socioeconomic, 59 as organisational, 10 as legal, 8 as environmental and 47 as ethical, while 36 were considered to relate to other domains. The consensus group, based on the 216 non-core criteria obtained from the systematic review, proposed, and defined 26 criteria that participants considered necessary for decision making in healthcare. The consensus group did not consider that any of the domains should be given more weight than others or that any individual criteria should dominate. These approaches can serve as a framework of reference for a well-structured systematic discussion concerning the basis of individual criteria and the evidence supporting them.

Value of concerted and hospital hemodialysis through a multi-criteria decision analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value of the provision of contracted versus hospital dialysis services for the treatment of chronic kidney disease in Spain using the multicriteria decision analysis methodology.

METHOD

The EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making) evaluation framework was used to calculate the estimated value of both dialysis delivery models (arranged vs. hospital) through a virtual workshop in which different profiles participated: directors and managers, professionals and heads of units and representatives of patients and relatives. The scores were combined using an additive lineal model, which combined the weight of the model with the individual score of the criteria, and each value was transformed to a scale between 0 and 1.

RESULTS

The estimated value for arranged dialysis was 0.29 (DS: ±0.2) and 0.39 (DS: ±0.2) for hospital dialysis. All profiles gave a higher value to hospital hemodialysis compared to contracted hemodialysis. The highest value for hospital dialysis was for patients (0.44), with the lowest mean value for directors (0.36) and the range for arranged dialysis being between patients (0.31) and intermediate positions (0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital hemodialysis obtained a higher value than concerted dialysis. In general, the panelists affirmed that it is a useful and interesting exercise and that, to a certain extent, it provides security in decision-making, since it allows ordering, rationalizing and considering, in an explicit and transparent manner, the different criteria involved.

Perceptions and Attitudes Regarding Medical Device Development in Canada Among Canadian Innovators: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

The Canadian medical device industry presents unique challenges to innovators. However, little attention has been paid to exploring the distinct experience of Canadian medical device innovators in the literature. The objective of this study is to explore the experience of Canadian innovators in navigating this industry, with a focus on their perceptions and attitudes towards the use of health economic evaluation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted using virtual conferencing technology. All participants were C-level employees of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with adequate knowledge of their company's overall strategy. Qualitative data were analyzed to reveal emerging themes.

RESULTS

Interviews were performed with ten participants. Forty percent of participants rated themselves as having either minimal or basic knowledge of health economics. Thirty percent of participants had not pursued early economic evaluation of their device, while 90% rated health economics as being either "Quite important" or "Very important" to their company. The perception of increased barriers to successful device adoption in Canada relative to the USA was a prominent sentiment among participants, with 50% expressing discontentment with either the device approval process or health technology assessment process in Canada. Twenty percent stated that their primary target market involved the USA and/or other international jurisdictions.

CONCLUSION

Canadian medical device innovators appear to understand the importance of health economic evaluation in the innovation process. However, they report difficulty with device approval and adoption, with some innovators focusing their efforts outside of Canada altogether. Further research should be directed toward understanding how to better support SMEs, given that they are a tremendous source of growth for the Canadian medical device industry.

Exploration or exploitation? A study on equity incentive design, dynamic decision making, and economic consequences

We examine whether equity incentive can encourage exploratory innovation from the perspective of dynamic innovation decision-making process. Using the data of equity incentives in China's listed companies from 2006 to 2017, we construct exploratory intensity of innovation strategy and analyze the impact of equity incentive on corporation exploratory innovation strategy from both the cross-sectional and time-series perspectives. We find a positive relationship between the vesting period and explorative innovation strategy in the cross-sectional dimension. However, the time-series analyses show that the innovation strategy becomes less explorative and more exploitative after the third period during equity incentive. The effect of vesting period is stronger in smaller firms and during the non-financial crisis period. Further analysis reveals that followed by the changes in innovation strategy, the growth rates of innovation output and firm performance also decline.

A novel drug selection decision support model based on real-world medical data by the hybrid entropic weight TOPSIS method

BACKGROUND

The medicine selection method is a critical and challenging issue in medical insurance decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

This study proposed a real-world data-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model with a hybrid entropic weight Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) algorithms to select satisfactory drugs.

METHODS

The evaluation index includes two levels: primary criteria and sub-criteria. Firstly, we proposed six primary criteria to form the value health framework. The primary criteria's weights were derived from the policymakers' questionnaire. Meanwhile, clinically relevant sub-criteria were derived from high-quality (screened by GRADE scores) clinical-research literature. Their weights are determined by the entropy weight (EW) algorithm. Secondly, we split the primary criteria into six mini-EW-TOPSIS models. Then, we obtained six ideal closeness degree scores (ICDS) for each candidate drug. Thirdly, we get the total utility score by linear weighting the ICDS. The higher the utility score, the higher the ranking.

RESULTS

A national multicenter real-world case study of the ranking of four generic antibiotics validated the proposed model. This model is verified by comparative experiments and sensitivity analysis. The whole ranking model was consistent and reliable. Based on these results, medical policymakers can intuitively and easily understand the characteristics of each drug to facilitate follow-up drug policy-making.

CONCLUSION

The ranking algorithm combines the objective characteristics of medicine and policy makers' opinions, which can improve the applicability of the results. This model can help decision-makers, clinicians, and related researchers better understand the drug assessment process.

Determining What Represents Value in the Treatment of Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough from the Perspective of Key Stakeholders in Spain Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic 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.

METHODS

A 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.

RESULTS

Refractory 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Refractory 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.

Preferences for attributes of long-term care in dementia: a scoping review of multi-criteria decision analyses

Aim

Long-term care considerations for persons with dementia are complex. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are increasingly used to support healthcare decisions. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and analyze published MCDAs in which preferences for living and care concepts for persons with dementia are determined.

Subject and methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in October 2021. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published up to October 14, 2021. The included publications aimed at eliciting care preferences for persons with dementia from patients, relatives, healthcare practitioners or the broader public by means of MCDA.

Results

Ten studies were included of whom seven were published in 2017 or afterwards. In nine studies, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted. The majority of studies surveyed the general population or caregivers of persons with dementia. Five studies assessed preferences for attributes of home care and two for long-term care facilities. Willingness to pay was addressed in eight studies. Choice task structure and experimental design varied widely. Despite different objectives, strong preferences for continuous care by the same person, organizational aspects, and caregiver expertise were found across studies.

Conclusion

This review shows that MCDA methods have successfully been applied to analyze preferences for living and care arrangements for persons with dementia. The majority of publications report on DCEs, and a variety of different study objectives and methodological approaches have been observed. Further research is needed to inform the design of innovative concepts which are a valuable alternative to existing care options.

The contribution of fenfluramine to the treatment of Dravet syndrome in Spain through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dravet Syndrome (DS) is a severe, developmental epileptic encephalopathy (DEE) that begins in infancy and is characterized by pharmaco-resistant epilepsy and neurodevelopmental delay. Despite available antiseizure medications (ASMs), there is a need for new therapeutic options with greater efficacy in reducing seizure frequency and with adequate safety and tolerability profiles. Fenfluramine is a new ASM for the treatment of seizures associated with DS as add-on therapy to other ASMs for patients aged 2 years and older. Fenfluramine decreases seizure frequency, prolongs periods of seizure freedom potentially helping to reduce risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) and improves patient cognitive abilities positively impacting on patients' Quality of Life (QoL). Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology allows to determine what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The aim of this study was to determine the relative value contribution of fenfluramine for the treatment of DS in Spain using MCDA.

METHOD

A literature review was performed to populate an adapted a MCDA framework for orphan-drug evaluation in Spain. A panel of ten Spanish experts, including neurologists, hospital pharmacists, patient representatives and decision-makers, scored four comparative evidence matrices. Results were analyzed and discussed in a group meeting through reflective MCDA discussion methodology.

RESULTS

Dravet syndrome is considered a severe, rare disease with significant unmet needs. Fenfluramine is perceived to have a higher efficacy profile than all available alternatives, with a better safety profile than stiripentol and topiramate and to provide improved QoL versus studied alternatives. Fenfluramine results in lower other medical costs in comparison with stiripentol and clobazam. Participants perceived that fenfluramine could lead to indirect costs savings compared to available alternatives due to its efficacy in controlling seizures. Overall, fenfluramine's therapeutic impact on patients with DS is considered high and supported by high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reflective MCDA, fenfluramine is considered to add greater benefit in terms of efficacy, safety and QoL when compared with available ASMs.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Probiotics in IBS Treatment Using a Systematic Review of Clinical Trials and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

The evaluation of probiotics' efficacy in treating irritable bowel syndrome is supported by an increasing number of clinical studies based on a heterogeneous approach of products tested and the patient cohort involved. Although the role of gut microbiota dysbiosis in IBS pathogenesis and the beneficial contribution of probiotics were demonstrated, a tool to discriminate symptom-specific strains and a personalised medicine protocol are still lacking. Thus, this study employs, for the first time, a method that combines the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis methods in a structured decision-making tool to analyze the efficacy of probiotic mix, in order to identify the most effective formulation and to discriminate which probiotics are more efficient in treating different symptoms. The PRISMA methodology resulted in a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 104 clinical studies from 2011 to 2021, revealing a prevalence of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis. MCDA analysis showed that formulations based on Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus acidophilus have the highest efficacy, especially on quality of life, bloating, and abdominal pain. This methodological approach could become more specific by modelling clinical studies according to the age and gender of patients and probiotic strain.

Knowledge Mapping of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis

Objective

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a useful tool in complex decision-making situations, and has been used in medical fields to evaluate treatment options and drug selection. This study aims to provide valuable insights into MCDA in healthcare through examining the research focus of existing studies, major fields, major applications, most productive authors and countries, and most common journals in the domain.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the publication related to MCDA in healthcare from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database on 14 July 2021. Three bibliometric software (VOSviewer, R-bibliometrix, and CiteSpace) were used to conduct the analysis including years, countries, institutes, authors, journals, co-citation references, and keywords.

Results

A total of 410 publications were identified with an average yearly growth rate of 32% (1999-2021), from 196 academic journals with 23,637 co-citation references by 871 institutions from 70 countries/regions. The United States was the most productive country (n = 80). Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (n = 16), Université de Montréal (n = 13), and Syreon Research Institute (n = 12) were the top productive institutions. A A Zaidan, Mireille Goetghebeur and Zoltan Kalo were the biggest nodes in every cluster of authors' networks. The top journals in terms of the number of articles (n = 17) and citations (n = 1,673) were Value in Health and Journal of Medical Systems, respectively. The extant literature has focused on four aspects, including the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), decision-making, health technology assessment, and healthcare waste management. COVID-19 and fuzzy TOPSIS received careful attention from MCDA applications recently. MCDA in big data, telemedicine, TOPSIS, and fuzzy AHP is well-developed and an important theme, which may be the trend in future research.

Conclusion

This study uncovers a holistic picture of the performance of MCDA-related literature published in healthcare. MCDA has a broad application on different topics and would be helpful for practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers working in healthcare to advance the wheel of medical complex decision-making. It can be argued that the door is still open for improving the role of MCDA in healthcare, whether in its methodology (e.g., fuzzy TOPSIS) or application (e.g., telemedicine).

Assessing the value of orphan drugs using conventional cost-effectiveness analysis: Is it fit for purpose?

Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis—i.e., assessing pharmaceuticals through a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) framework—originated from a societal commitment to maximize population health given limited resources. This "extra-welfarist" approach has produced pricing and reimbursement systems that are not well- aligned with the unique considerations of orphan drugs. This framework has been slow to evolve along with our increased understanding of the impact of rare diseases, which in turn has complicated the assessment of orphan drugs meant to treat rare diseases. Herein, we (i) discuss the limitations of conventional cost-effectiveness analysis as applied to assessing access to, as well as the pricing and reimbursement of, orphan drugs, (ii) critically appraise alternative and supplemental approaches, and (iii) offer insights on plausible steps forward.

Application of a Mixed Methods Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework in Integrated Health Care

Background:

Evaluating integrated care programs is complex. Integration benefits may not become apparent within short evaluation timeframes, and many programs provide a wide variety of health and non-health benefits. To address these challenges, we illustrate a mixed methods approach for evaluating multiple integrated care programs using multi-criteria decision analysis.

Methods:

We adapted a decision support tool used by local decision makers to compare data extracted from 17 different integrated care evaluations. Criteria included impact on health services capacity, patient outcomes, integration of care, workforce development and implementation risk, weighted based on stakeholder preferences. Program benefits were compared to their implementation costs, and assessed using cost-effectiveness methods. Sensitivity analysis examined the impact of different criteria weights.

Results and discussion:

This method captured a diverse range of benefits provided by integrated care programs and provided an accessible heuristic to compare many projects simultaneously. However, this approach may not be sensitive to the appropriateness of each criterion to the health system, the magnitude of difference in individual criteria, equity considerations or socio-political factors. Internal and external validation, especially for subjective criteria such as implementation risk, are needed.

Conclusions:

This work offers a feasible, flexible and pragmatic approach for evaluating integrated care programs.

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.

The Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Methods in Health Care: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this article are 2-fold. First, we explore the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods in different areas of health care, particularly the adoption of various MCDA methods across health care decision making problems. Second, we report on the publication trends on the application of MCDA methods in health care.

METHOD

PubMed was searched for literature from 1960 to 2019 in the English language. A wide range of keywords was used to retrieve relevant studies. The literature search was performed in September 2019. Articles were included only if they have reported an MCDA case in health care.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The search yielded 8,318 abstracts, of which 158 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were considered for further analysis. Hybrid methods are the most widely used methods in health care decision making problems. When it comes to single methods, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is the most widely used method followed by TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution), multiattribute utility theory, goal programming, EVIDEM (evidence and value: impact on decision making), evidential reasoning, discrete choice experiment, and so on. Interestingly, the usage of hybrid methods has been high in recent years. AHP is most widely applied in screening and diagnosing and followed by treatment, medical devices, resource allocation, and so on. Furthermore, treatment, screening and diagnosing, medical devices, and drug development and assessment got more attention in the MCDA context. It is indicated that the application of MCDA methods to health care decision making problem is determined by the nature and complexity of the health care problem. However, guidelines and tools exist that assist in the selection of an MCDA method.

Exploring physicians and patients' perspectives for current interventions on thyroid nodules using a MCDA method

BACKGROUND

The detection of thyroid cancer has rapidly increased over last few decades without an increase in disease specific mortality. Several studies claim that the diagnose of thyroid nodules through routine ultrasound imaging is often the trigger for cascade effects leading to unnecessary follow-up over many years or to invasive treatment. The objective of this study was to explore physicians' and patients' insights and preferences regarding the current interventions on thyroid nodules.

METHODS

An online survey was developed using a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, the EVIdence based Decision-Making (EVIDEM). The EVIDEM core model used in this study encompassed 13 quantitative criteria and four qualitative criteria. Participants were asked to provide weights referring to what matters most important in general for each criterion, performance scores for appraising the interventions on thyroid nodules and their consideration of impact of contextual criteria. Normalized weights and standardized scores were combined to calculate a value contribution across all participants, additionally differences across physicians and patients' group were explored.

RESULTS

48 patients and 31 physicians were included in the analysis. The value estimate of the interventions on thyroid nodules reached 0.549 for patients' group and 0.5 was reported by the physicians' group, compared to 0.543 for all participants. The highest value contributor was 'Comparative effectiveness' (0.073 ± 0.020). For the physicians' group, 'Comparative safety' (0.050 ± 0.023) was given with higher value. And for the patients' group, 'Type of preventive benefits' (0.059 ± 0.022) contributed more positively to the value estimation. 51% participants considered 'Population priorities and access' having a negative impact on the interventions of nodules.66% participants thought that the 'system capacity' had a negative impact.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows participants' preferences on each criterion, i.e., physician indicated keeping the interventions safe and effective more important, patients indicated quality of life after receiving interventions more important. Through comparison among participants, differences have been highlighted, which can make better communication between physicians and patients. This study provides a supportive decision-making for healthcare providers when they explored the interventions on thyroid nodules.

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.

Fostering Responsible Innovation in Health: An Evidence-Informed Assessment Tool for Innovation Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Responsible innovation in health (RIH) emphasizes the importance of developing technologies that are responsive to system-level challenges and support equitable and sustainable healthcare. To help decision-makers identify whether an innovation fulfills RIH requirements, we developed and validated an evidence-informed assessment tool comprised of 4 inclusion and exclusion criteria, 9 assessment attributes and a scoring system.

METHODS

We conducted an inter-rater reliability assessment to establish the extent to which 2 raters agree when applying the RIH Tool to a diversified sample of health innovations (n=25). Following the Tool's 3-step process, sources of information were collected and cross-checked to ensure their clarity and relevance. Ratings were reported independently in a spreadsheet to generate the study's database. To measure inter-rater reliability, we used: a non-adjusted index (percent agreement), a chance-adjusted index (Gwet's AC) and the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results of the Tool's application to the whole sample of innovations are summarized through descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Our findings show complete agreement for the screening criteria, "almost perfect" agreement for 7 assessment attributes, "substantial" agreement for 2 attributes and "almost perfect" agreement for the RIH overall score. A large portion of the sample obtained high scores for 6 attributes (health relevance, health inequalities, responsiveness, level and intensity of care and frugality) and low scores for 3 attributes (ethical, legal, and social issues [ELSIs], inclusiveness and eco-responsibility). At the rating step, 88% of the innovations had a sufficient number of attributes documented (≥ 7/9), but the assessment was based on sources of moderate to high quality (mean score ≥ 2 points) for 36% of the sample. While "Almost all RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (RIH mean score between 4.1-5.0 points), "Many RIH features" were present for 52% of the sample (3.1-4.0 points) and "Few RIH features" were present for 24% of the innovations (2.1-3.0 points).

CONCLUSION

By confirming key aspects of the RIH Tool's reliability and applicability, our study brings its development to completion. It can be jointly put into action by innovation stakeholders who want to foster innovations with greater social, economic and environmental value.

Reconciling ACEA and MCDA: is there a way forward for measuring cost-effectiveness in the U.S. healthcare setting?

Background

The ISPOR Special Task Force (STF) on US Value Assessment Frameworks was agnostic about exactly how to implement the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as a key element in an overall cost-effectiveness evaluation. But the STF recommended using the cost-per-QALY gained as a starting point in deliberations about including a new technology in a health plan benefit. The STF offered two major alternative approaches—augmented cost-effectiveness analysis (ACEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)—while emphasizing the need to apply either a willingness-to-pay (WTP) or opportunity cost threshold rule to operationalize the inclusion decision.

Methods

The MCDA model uses the multi-attribute utility function. The ACEA model is based on the expected utility theory. In both ACEA and MCDA models, value trade-offs are derived in a hierarchical model with two high-level objectives which measure overall health gain separately from financial attributes affecting consumption.

Results

Even though value trade-offs can be elicited or revealed without considering budget constraints, we demonstrate that they can be used similarly to WTP-based cost-effectiveness thresholds for resource allocation decisions. The consideration of how costs of medical technology, income, and severity of disease affect value trade-offs demonstrates, however, that reconciling decisions in ACEA and MCDA requires that health and consumption are either complements or independent attributes.

Conclusions

We conclude that value trade-offs derived either from ACEA or MCDA move similarly with changes in main factors considered by enrollees and decision makers—costs of the medical technology, income, and severity of disease. Consequently, this complementarity between health and consumption is a necessary condition for reconciling ACEA and MCDA. Moreover, their similarity would be further enhanced if the QALY is used as the key attribute or anchor in the MCDA value function: the choice between the two is a pragmatic question that is still open.

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.

Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia by using the framework of the strategic multi-attribute ranking tool for vaccines (SMART vaccines)

Background: Decision-making processes regarding new vaccine prioritizations are complex. The objective of this study was to prioritize the introduction of new vaccines in Indonesia.Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied in this study. A preliminary data collection form was developed to collect country-specific data in relation to 30 pre-defined attributes. In particular, an open-ended questionnaire was conducted among targeted respondents from global level, national level and vaccine manufacturers, which were involved in the financial flows of new vaccine procurement in Indonesia. For setting new vaccines priorities, targeted respondents were asked to assign weight on 10 selected criteria.Results: Top 3 attributes with the highest weight from respondents were premature deaths averted per year, incident cases prevented per year, and cost-effectiveness. Applying criteria scores and weight assessment, the result showed that PCV, rotavirus, HPV, and JE would be on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rank for setting new vaccine priority in Indonesia. There was a significant difference score (p value <0.05) between all these vaccines.Conclusions: PCV, rotavirus and HPV vaccines should be more prioritized than JE vaccine. This ranking is in line with the WHO's priority list, which potentially illustrates the validity and usefulness of our MCDA-approach.

The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous cancer with widely varying levels of morbidity and mortality. Approaches to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and management differ around the world. To identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain, Movember conducted a landscape analysis with the aim of maximizing the effect of future research investment through global collaborative efforts and partnerships. A global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy. Men with prostate cancer and thought leaders from a variety of disciplines provided a range of key insights through a range of interviews. Insights were prioritized against predetermined criteria to understand the areas of greatest unmet need. From these efforts, 17 research needs in prostate cancer were agreed on and prioritized, and 3 received the maximum prioritization score by the LAC: first, to establish more sensitive and specific tests to improve disease screening and diagnosis; second, to develop indicators to better stratify low-risk prostate cancer for determining which men should go on active surveillance; and third, to integrate companion diagnostics into randomized clinical trials to enable prediction of treatment response. On the basis of the findings from the landscape analysis, Movember will now have an increased focus on addressing the specific research needs that have been identified, with particular investment in research efforts that reduce disease progression and lead to improved therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

The Movember global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy to identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain. Findings from the landscape analysis illustrate the research priorities in prostate cancer and will enable Movember to focus on specific needs, with particular investment in research to reduce disease progression and improve therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

Artificial Intelligence and Health Technology Assessment: Anticipating a New Level of Complexity

Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a strategic lever to improve access, quality, and efficiency of care and services and to build learning and value-based health systems. Many studies have examined the technical performance of AI within an experimental context. These studies provide limited insights into the issues that its use in a real-world context of care and services raises. To help decision makers address these issues in a systemic and holistic manner, this viewpoint paper relies on the health technology assessment core model to contrast the expectations of the health sector toward the use of AI with the risks that should be mitigated for its responsible deployment. The analysis adopts the perspective of payers (ie, health system organizations and agencies) because of their central role in regulating, financing, and reimbursing novel technologies. This paper suggests that AI-based systems should be seen as a health system transformation lever, rather than a discrete set of technological devices. Their use could bring significant changes and impacts at several levels: technological, clinical, human and cognitive (patient and clinician), professional and organizational, economic, legal, and ethical. The assessment of AI's value proposition should thus go beyond technical performance and cost logic by performing a holistic analysis of its value in a real-world context of care and services. To guide AI development, generate knowledge, and draw lessons that can be translated into action, the right political, regulatory, organizational, clinical, and technological conditions for innovation should be created as a first step.

'It takes two to tango': Bridging the gap between country need and vaccine product innovation

Background

Despite a growing global commitment to universal health coverage, considerable vaccine coverage and uptake gaps persist in resource-constrained settings. One way of addressing the gaps is by ensuring product innovation is relevant and responsive to the needs of these contexts. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) framework has been developed to characterize preferred vaccine attributes from the perspective of country decision-makers to inform research and development (R&D) of products. A proof of concept pilot study took place in Thailand in 2018 to examine the feasibility and usefulness of the TSE approach using a rotavirus hypothetical test-case.

Methods

The excel-based model used multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare and evaluate five hypothetical rotavirus vaccine products. The model was populated with local data and products were ranked against decision criteria identified by Thai stakeholders. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to identify criteria that influenced vaccine ranking. Self-assessment forms were distributed to R&D stakeholders on the usability of the approach and were subsequently analysed.

Results

The model identified significant parameters that impacted on MCDA rankings. Self-assessment forms revealed that TSE was perceived as being able to encourage closer collaboration between country decision makers and vaccine developers.

Conclusions

The pilot study demonstrates that it is feasible to use an MCDA approach to elicit stakeholder preferences and determine influential parameters to help identify the preferred product characteristics for R&D from the perspective of country decision-makers. It found that TSE can help steer manufacturers to develop products that are better aligned with country need. Findings will guide further development of the TSE concept.

Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making

Background

Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively.

Results

We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: “Health-related balance of benefits and harms”; “Human and individual rights”; “Acceptability considerations”; “Societal considerations”; “Considerations of equity, equality and fairness”; “Cost and financial considerations”; and “Feasibility and health system considerations”. In addition, we identified an eight criterion “Evidence”.

Conclusion

This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process.

Unmet Medical Need: An Introduction to Definitions and Stakeholder Perceptions

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing informal and formal use of unmet medical need (UMN) in drug development, regulation, and assessment, there is no insight into its definitions in use. This study aims to provide insight into the current definitions in use and to provide a starting point for a multi-stakeholder discussion on alignment.

METHODS

A scoping and a gray literature review were performed to locate definitions of UMN in literature and on stakeholder websites. These definitions were categorized and then discussed among the multi-stakeholder author group via semistructured group discussions and open session workshops with a broader stakeholder audience. Issues with the formation of a common definition and mechanisms for use were discussed.

RESULTS

The reviews yielded 16 definitions. Differences were evident, but all included 1 or more of the following elements: (adequacy of) available treatments (16 of 16: 100%), disease severity or burden (6 of 16: 38%), and patient population size (1 of 16: 6%). The stakeholder discussions led to a suggestion for a definition including the first 2 items and, depending on context, population size. The discussions also showed that quantification of UMN is highly dependent on the scope and the value framework in which it is used based on different stakeholder preferences and responsibilities.

CONCLUSION

We encourage stakeholders that want to promote alignment on the concept of UMN to prospectively discuss the scope in which they want to apply the concept, what elements they find important for consideration in each case, and how they would measure UMN within the broader regulatory or value framework applicable.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward

OBJECTIVE

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context.

METHODS

The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds.

RESULTS

We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

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.

Proposition of a Shared and Value-Oriented Work Structure for Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment and Enterprise Risk Management Processes

BACKGROUND

Healthcare organizations have invested efforts on hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) and enterprise risk management (ERM) processes for novel systems to obtain more accurate data on which to base strategic decisions. This study proposes to analyze how HB-HTA and ERM processes can share personal resources and skills to achieve principles with value-oriented results.

METHODS

Literature on ERM and HB-HTA and data from interviews with healthcare managers compose the research data sources, which were submitted to a qualitative data analysis. It was oriented to identify the association between ERM and HB-HTA application in hospitals and the common principles between both processes, in addition to proposing the capability to share personal resources between both teams in a matrix.

RESULTS

The common principles and personal background suggested for HB-HTA and ERM teams allowed the build of a matrix identifying how both teams can work in an integrated manner being more effective and value-oriented. The shared resource matrix reports how each professional (with a specific background) may interact with each activity associated to HB-HTA or ERM implementation guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of common principles and capabilities between ERM and HB-HTA suggested advances with the literature from both research areas. The opportunity to share personal resources also contributes to the implementation of those processes in hospitals with less financial resources, approaching its own management to be more efficient with the care chain.

Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first

The economic evaluation which supports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) should inform policy makers of the value to society conferred by a given allocation of resources. However, neither the theory nor practise of economic evaluation satisfactorily reflect social values. Both are primarily concerned with efficiency, commonly conceptualised as the maximisation of utility or quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The focus is upon the service and the benefits obtained from it. This has resulted in an evaluation methodology which discriminates against groups and treatments which the population would like to prioritise. This includes high cost treatments for patients with rare diseases. In contrast with prevailing methods, there is increasing evidence that the public would prefer a fairness-focused framework in which the service was removed from centre stage and replaced by the patient. However methods for achieving fairness are ad hoc and under-developed. The article initially reviews the theory of economic evaluation and argues that its focus upon individual utility and efficiency as defined by the theory omits potentially important social values. Some empirical evidence relating to population values is presented and four studies by the first author are reviewed. These indicate that when people adopt the social perspective of a citizen they have a preference for sharing the health budget in a way which does not exclude patients who require services that are not cost effective, such as orphan medicinal products (OMP's) and treatments for patients with ultra-rare diseases (URD's).

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases, and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growth in both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated to finance new medicines as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimize the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need.

Frozen Section for Detection of Lymph Nodes After Cervical Injection with Indocyanine Green (ICG) for Sentinel Lymph Node Technique in Endometrial Cancer Staging

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the role of frozen section (FS) in identifying an absence of lymph nodes during sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer (EC).

METHODS

Consecutive apparent early-stage EC patients who had SLNs removed after cervical injection with indocyanine green (ICG) from 1 June 2014 to 30 June 2016 were analyzed. An empty node (EN) was defined as an SLN specimen without evidence of lymph node(s). The association of tumor and patient characteristics with an EN was evaluated, and trend analysis to compare the rate of ENs over calendar quarters was performed. A decision-tree model was then created to compare the use of FS versus no FS for SLN evaluation in the hypothetical cohort affected by early-stage EC in the US each year.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 300 patients met the inclusion criteria. FS revealed ENs in 24 (8%) patients. No association between patient demographic characteristics (age, body mass index, prior abdominopelvic surgery, international federation of gynecology and obstetrics (FIGO) stage, histology, myometrial invasion, cervical stromal invasion) and presence of ENs was observed. The rate of ENs at FS did not change over time (p = 0.68). The hypothetical analysis showed a 4.3% decrease of inappropriately staged patients with the use of FS on the SLN (95% confidence interval 4.1-4.5).

CONCLUSIONS

ENs during SLN biopsy for EC staging is not a rare event and can be easily detected with FS. The implementation of FS of SLN might reduce inadequate staging of EC. Individual institutions may want to examine their own EN rates and determine if this would assist them in their SLN practices for EC.

ERM for Health Care Organizations: An Economic Enterprise Risk Management Innovation Program (E2RMhealth care)

BACKGROUND

In recent years, health care organizations have looked to enterprise risk management (ERM) for novel systems to obtain more accurate data on which to base risk strategies.

OBJECTIVE

This study proposes a conceptual ERM framework specifically designed for health care organizations.

METHODS

We explore how hospitals in the United States and Brazil are structuring and implementing ERM processes within their management structure. This study incorporates interviews with 15 chief risk officers (8 from the United States and 7 from Brazil) with qualitative data analysis using NVivo (QSR International software).

RESULTS

The interviews confirm that adopting ERM for health care organizations has gained momentum and become a priority, and that the demand for risk economic assessment orientation is common among health care risk managers.

CONCLUSION

We propose an ERM model for health care (Economic Enterprise Risk Management in Health Care) divided into four maturity levels and complemented by an implementation timeline. The model is accompanied by guidelines to orient the gradual implementation of ERM, including orientation to perform risk economic assessment.

Towards Integrated Health Technology Assessment for Improving Decision Making in Selected Countries

OBJECTIVES

To assess the level of comprehensiveness of health technology assessment (HTA) practices around the globe and to formulate recommendations for enhancing legitimacy and fairness of related decision-making processes.

METHODS

To identify best practices, we developed an evaluation framework consisting of 13 criteria on the basis of the INTEGRATE-HTA model (integrative perspective on assessing health technologies) and the Accountability for Reasonableness framework (deliberative appraisal process). We examined different HTA systems in middle-income countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Thailand) and high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Scotland, and South Korea). For this purpose, desk research and structured interviews with relevant key stakeholders (N = 32) in the selected countries were conducted.

RESULTS

HTA systems in Canada, England, and Scotland appear relatively well aligned with our framework, followed by Australia, Germany, and France. Argentina and South Korea are at an early stage, whereas Brazil and Thailand are at an intermediate level. Both desk research and interviews revealed that scoping is often not part of the HTA process. In contrast, providing evidence reports for assessment is well established. Indirect and unintended outcomes are increasingly considered, but there is room for improvement. Monitoring and evaluation of the HTA process is not well established across countries. Finally, adopting transparent and robust processes, including stakeholder consultation, takes time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents a framework for assessing the level of comprehensiveness of the HTA process in a country. On the basis of applying the framework, we formulate recommendations on how the HTA community can move toward a more integrated decision-making process using HTA.

Evaluation of infectious diseases and clinical microbiology specialists' preferences for hand hygiene: analysis using the multi-attribute utility theory and the analytic hierarchy process methods

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is one of the most effective attempts to control nosocomial infections, and it is an important measure to avoid the transmission of pathogens. However, the compliance of healthcare workers (HCWs) with hand washing is still poor worldwide. Herein, we aimed to determine the best hand hygiene preference of the infectious diseases and clinical microbiology (IDCM) specialists to prevent transmission of microorganisms from one patient to another.

METHODS

Expert opinions regarding the criteria that influence the best hand hygiene preference were collected through a questionnaire via face-to-face interviews. Afterwards, these opinions were examined with two widely used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

RESULTS

A total of 15 IDCM specialist opinions were collected from diverse private and public hospitals located in İzmir, Turkey. The mean age of the participants was 49.73 ± 8.46, and the mean experience year of the participants in their fields was 17.67 ± 11.98. The findings that we obtained through two distinct decision making methods, the MAUT and the AHP, suggest that alcohol-based antiseptic solution (ABAS) has the highest utility (0.86) and priority (0.69) among the experts' choices.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the MAUT and the AHP, decision models developed here indicate that rubbing the hands with ABAS is the most favorable choice for IDCM specialists to prevent nosocomial infection.

AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES: INTEGRATE-HTA

OBJECTIVES

Current health technology assessment (HTA) is not well equipped to assess complex technologies as insufficient attention is being paid to the diversity in patient characteristics and preferences, context, and implementation. Strategies to integrate these and several other aspects, such as ethical considerations, in a comprehensive assessment are missing. The aim of the European research project INTEGRATE-HTA was to develop a model for an integrated HTA of complex technologies.

METHODS

A multi-method, four-stage approach guided the development of the INTEGRATE-HTA Model: (i) definition of the different dimensions of information to be integrated, (ii) literature review of existing methods for integration, (iii) adjustment of concepts and methods for assessing distinct aspects of complex technologies in the frame of an integrated process, and (iv) application of the model in a case study and subsequent revisions.

RESULTS

The INTEGRATE-HTA Model consists of five steps, each involving stakeholders: (i) definition of the technology and the objective of the HTA; (ii) development of a logic model to provide a structured overview of the technology and the system in which it is embedded; (iii) evidence assessment on effectiveness, economic, ethical, legal, and socio-cultural aspects, taking variability of participants, context, implementation issues, and their interactions into account; (iv) populating the logic model with the data generated in step 3; (v) structured process of decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The INTEGRATE-HTA Model provides a structured process for integrated HTAs of complex technologies. Stakeholder involvement in all steps is essential as a means of ensuring relevance and meaningful interpretation of the evidence.

Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: A multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to reveal through pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM) the contribution of a broad range of criteria to the value of the orphan drug lenvatinib for radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) in country-specific contexts.

METHODS

The study was designed to enable comprehensive appraisal (12 quantitative, 7 qualitative criteria) in the current disease context (watchful waiting, sorafenib) of France, Italy and Spain. Data on the value of lenvatinib was collected from diverse stakeholders during country-specific panels and included: criteria weights (individual and social values); performance scores (judgments on evidence-collected through MCDA systematic review); qualitative impacts of contextual criteria; and verbal and written insights structured by criteria. The value contribution of each criterion was calculated and uncertainty explored.

RESULTS

Comparative effectiveness, Quality of evidence (Spain and Italy) and Disease severity (France) received the greatest weights. Four criteria contributed most to the value of lenvatinib, reflecting its superior Comparative effectiveness (16-22% of value), the severity of RR-DTC (16-22%), significant unmet needs (14-21%) and robust evidence (14-20%). Contributions varied by comparator, country and individuals, highlighting the importance of context and consultation. Results were reproducible at the group level. Impacts of contextual criteria varied across countries reflecting different health systems and cultural backgrounds. The MCDA process promoted sharing stakeholders' knowledge on lenvatinib and insights on context.

CONCLUSIONS

The value of lenvatinib was consistently positive across diverse therapeutic contexts. MCDA identified the aspects contributing most to value, revealed rich contextual insights, and helped participants express and explicitly tackle ethical trade-offs inherent to balanced appraisal and decisionmaking.