Comprehensive value assessment of drugs using a multi-criteria decision analysis: An example of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment

Understanding What Matters: Stakeholder Views on Decision Criteria for Cancer Drug Selection in the Public Sector in Malaysia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine stakeholders' decision criteria preferences for formulary decisions of cancer drugs in the Ministry of Health. The secondary objective was to identify the outcome measures of interest for assessment of clinical benefits for cancer drugs.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire was administered online and as hard copy using purposive sampling to 32 healthcare facilities providing cancer services and the Formulary Management Branch in the Ministry of Health. Respondents reported whether a criterion "will be considered" and weighted its relative importance on a 5-point scale. The choice of safety and efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were ranked from 1 to 5, and the minimum value of benefit for the efficacy/effectiveness outcome ranked 1 was provided. Trade-offs between survival and quality of life were also explored. Inferential statistics were used to explore difference in responses.

RESULTS

A total of 316 healthcare professionals responded to the survey. The most important criteria for value assessment of cancer drug were safety and effectiveness. Other criteria deemed important were quality of evidence, disease severity, and patient-reported outcomes. There was no difference in the criteria preference and weights across the various respondent groups. Overall survival was the most preferred clinical benefit outcome. Overall, willingness to pay was higher for life-prolonging treatment than treatment that improved quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that a wide range of criteria beyond the traditional decision-making criteria of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness are important for value assessment of cancer drugs for the purpose of formulary decisions.

An innovative tool to prioritize the assessment of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics: A pilot project

Background

As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, hundreds of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics emerged. Maintaining situational awareness of this extensive and rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape represented an unprecedented challenge for the Public Health Agency of Canada, as it worked to promote and protect the health of Canadians. A tool to triage and prioritize the assessment of these therapeutics was needed.

Methods

The objective was to develop and conduct an initial validation of a tool to identify investigational COVID-19 therapeutics for further review based on an efficient preliminary assessment, using a systematic and reliable process that would be practical to validate, implement and update. Phase 1 of this pilot project consisted of a literature search to identify existing COVID-19 therapeutic assessment prioritization tools, development of the Rapid Scoring Tool (RST) and initial validation of the tool.

Results

No tools designed to rank investigational COVID-19 therapeutics for the purpose of prioritizing their assessment were identified. However, a few publications provided criteria to consider and therapeutic ranking methods, which helped shape the development of the RST. The RST included eight criteria and several descriptors ("characteristics"). A universal characteristic scoring scale from -10 to 10 was developed. The sum of all the characteristic scores yielded an overall benefit score for each therapeutic. The RST appropriately ranked therapeutics using a systematic, reliable and practical approach.

Conclusion

Phase 1 was successfully completed. The RST presents several distinct aspects compared with other tools, including its scoring scale and method, and capacity to factor in incomplete or pending information. It is anticipated that the framework used for the RST will lend itself to use in other dynamic situations involving many interventions.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Chinese Medicine Injections for Primary Liver Cancer Based on Multi-criteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefit-risk of 3 commonly used Chinese medicine injections, Aidi Injection (ADI), Cinobufagin Injection (CINI) and Compound Kushen Injection (CKI), in the treatment of primary liver cancer (PLC), so as to provide a reference for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ADI, CINI and CKI in the treatment of PLC published in the databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were retrieved from January 2020 to October 2022. The data of benefit and risk indicators were combined to obtain the effect value. The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) model was applied to build the decision tree. The benefit value, risk value and benefit risk value of the 3 injections in PLC treatment were calculated. Monte Carlo simulation was carried out to calculate the 95% confidence interval and probability of differences among the 3 injections, so as to optimize the evaluation results.

RESULTS

A total of 71 RCTs were included. The benefit values of ADI, CINI and CKI combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) were 42, 38 and 36, respectively. The risk values were 42, 25 and 37, respectively. The benefit risk values were 42, 31 and 37, respectively. The benefit risk differences of ADI vs. CINI, ADI vs. CKI, and CKI vs. CINI were 11 (-0.86, 17.75), 5 (-5.01, 11.09), and 6 (-1.87, 12.63), respectively. The probability that ADI superior to CINI, ADI superior to CKI, and CKI superior to CINI was 96.26%, 77.27%, and 92.62%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of MCDA model, CINI combined with TACE has the greatest risk in the treatment of the PLC. Considering the efficacy and safety, the possible priority of the 3 Chinese medicine injections combined with TACE in the treatment of PLC is ADI, CKI and CINI.

Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly infectious disease that poses a significant clinical and medical burden, as well as social disruption and economic costs, recognized by the World Health Organization as a public health issue. After several failed attempts to find preventive candidates (compounds, products, including vaccines), new alternatives might be available, one being nirsevimab, the first and only option approved for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season. The objective of this study was to develop a novel multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for RSV antibody-based preventive alternatives and to use it to assess the value of nirsevimab vs. placebo as a systematic immunization approach to prevent RSV in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

METHODS

Based on a pre-established model called Vaccinex, an ad-hoc MCDA framework was created to reflect relevant attributes for the assessment of current and future antibody-based preventive measures for RSV. The estimated value of nirsevimab was obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 9 experts. A retest and three sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nirsevimab was evaluated through a novel framework with 26 criteria by the committee as a measure that adds value (positive final estimated value: 0.56 ± 0.11) to the current RSV scenario in Spain, by providing a high efficacy for prevention of neonates and infants. In addition, its implementation might generate cost savings in hospitalizations and to the healthcare system and increase the level of public health awareness among the general population, while reducing health inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, nirsevimab has been evaluated as a measure which adds value for RSV prevention in neonates and infants during their first RSV season in Spain.

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.

Introduction of managed entry agreements in Korea: Problem, policy, and politics

Objectives: This study aimed to understand Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) in Korea through the framework of three streams of the policy window model and its practical management and impact on pricing and reimbursement scheme. Methods: An extensive literature review based on Kingdon's model was conducted. We also performed descriptive analyses of MEA implementation using data on medicines listed in Korea and compared its MEA scheme with four different countries. Results: As per problem streams, patients with rare disease or cancers have considerable difficulties in affording their medicines and this has challenged the drug benefit system and raised an issue of patient's access. Policy streams highlighted that MEAs were introduced as a benefit enhancement plan for four major diseases since January 2014. MEAs have also been strengthened as a bypass mechanism to expand the insurance coverage especially for new premium-priced medicines under Moon Care (Listing all non-listed services). In descriptive analysis of MEAs, a total of 48 medicines were contracted as MEAs from January 2014 to December 2020, accounting for 73.4% of listed medicines for cancer or rare diseases and 97.9% of the cases were finance-based contracts. Meanwhile, outcome-based contracts such as CED accounted for only 2.1%. The application of MEAs differs across countries, resulting in a kappa coefficient of 0.00-0.14 (United Kingdom 0.03, Italy 0.00, Australia 0.14), indicating a lack of consistency compared to South Korea. Conclusion: MEAs, which were introduced as a bypass mechanism, have now superseded the standard process for anticancer agents or orphan drugs. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the confidential agreements and effectiveness of new high-priced medicines with limited clinical data at launch.

HD, Salgado CG, da Silva MB, Barreto JG, da Costa PF, dos Santos AM, Conde GAB, Seruffo MCDR. A study about management of drugs for leprosy patients under medical monitoring: A solution based on AHP-Electre decision-making methods

Leprosy, also known as Hansen's, is one of the listed neglected tropical diseases as a major health problem global. Treatment is one of the main alternatives, however, the scarcity of medication and its poor distribution are important factors that have driven the spread of the disease, leading to irreversible and multi-resistant complications. This paper uses a distribution methodology to optimize medication administration, taking into account the most relevant attributes for the epidemiological profile of patients and the deficit in treatment via Polychemotherapy. Multi-criteria Decision Methods were applied based on AHP-Electre model in a database with information from patients in the state of Para between 2015 and 2020. The results pointed out that 84% of individuals did not receive any treatment and, among these, the method obtained a gain in the distribution of 68% in patients with positive diagnosis for leprosy.

A multi-criteria decision analysis on the value of nintedanib for interstitial lung diseases

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to assess the value of nintedanib for non-idiopathic progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (non-IPF PF-ILD) and systemic sclerosis-associated ILD (SSc-ILD) in the Spanish context, using a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).

METHODS

Following an adaptation of the Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcision Making (EVIDEM) MCDA methodology, the estimated value of nintedanib was obtained by means of an additive linear model that combined individual weights (100-points distribution) of criteria with the individual scoring of nintedanib in each criterion for every indication, assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of twelve clinicians, patients, pharmacists, and decision-makers. To assess the reproducibility, an alternative weighting method was applied, as well as a re-test of weights and scores at a different moment of time.

RESULTS

The experts committee recognized nintedanib as an intervention with a positive value contribution in comparison to placebo for the treatment of non-IPF PF-ILD (0.50 ± 0.16, on a scale from -1 to 1) and SSc-ILD (0.40 ± 0.12), diseases which were considered as very severe and with high unmet needs. The drug was perceived as a treatment that provides an added therapeutic benefit for patients (0.06-0.07), given its proven clinical efficacy (0.05-0.06), slight improvements in patient-reported outcomes (0.01-0.02), and similar safety profile than placebo (-0.04-0.00), which will likely be positioned as a recommended therapy in the next clinical practice guidelines updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Under this increasingly used methodology, nintedanib has shown to provide a positive value estimate for non-IPF PF-ILD and SSc-ILD when compared to placebo in Spain.

Assessing the value contribution of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a multidisciplinary reflective multi-criteria decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was proposed to surmount arbitrary clinical decisions in the field of biological therapies for psoriatic patients. At the same time, MCDA may further highlight the potential of bimekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, compared to placebo, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, and even ixekizumab and risankizumab.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The EVIDEM framework was adapted to reflect relevant criteria for the assessment. Estimated values were obtained by means of an additive linear model combining weights and scores assigned by a multidisciplinary committee of 12 experts. Consistency and replicability were evaluated through an alternative weighting method and a re-test.

RESULTS

Bimekizumab was assessed by the committee as an intervention with a positive value contribution for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in comparison to any of the alternatives. The drug provides a substantial therapeutical benefits and improves the health results reported by the patients, as it combines a higher level of clearance, rapidity, and persistence with a similar safety and tolerability profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Under a methodology with increasing use in the health field, bimekizumab was evaluated as a drug with a high added value for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis when compared to six different alternatives.

Impact of physical exercise in advanced-stage cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Health professionals predict that the number of people who will suffer and die from oncological diseases will continue to increase. It is vitally important to provide comprehensive care to these patients and prescribe physical exercise programs as adjuvant therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of physical exercise on advanced‐stage cancer patients. A literature search was performed in eight different databases. This search focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published during the last 10 years. To assess the methodological quality of the sample of 15 RCTs finally obtained, the PEDro scale was used. Aerobic and strength training methods were used. The combination of both aerobic and strength training methods was the most frequently reported. Likewise, different physical and psychological variables were recorded, from which improvements were seen in fatigue, independence, quality of life and sleep, among others. The participation in physical exercise programs by advanced‐stage cancer patients has a positive impact on health. Providing these programs serves as adjuvant therapy, facilitating the comprehensive care of patients. Similarly, aerobic, strength or mixed training programs increase the muscle mass of patients and therefore reduce hypotonia, the main side effect during the advanced‐stages of cancer.

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.

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.