Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:04:09.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS AS A DECISION-SUPPORT TOOL FOR DRUG EVALUATION: A PILOT STUDY IN A PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE SETTING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2018

Úrsula Baños Roldán ,
Xavier Badia ,
Jose Antonio Marcos-Rodríguez ,
Luis de la Cruz-Merino ,
Jaime Gómez-González ,
Ana Melcón-de Dios ,
María de la O Caraballo-Camacho ,
Jaime Cordero-Ramos ,
María Dolores Alvarado-Fernández  and
José Manuel Galiana-Auchel
...Show all authors
Úrsula Baños Roldán
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Virgen [email protected]
Xavier Badia
Affiliation:
Omakase Consulting S. L
Jose Antonio Marcos-Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
Luis de la Cruz-Merino
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
Jaime Gómez-González
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
Ana Melcón-de Dios
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
María de la O Caraballo-Camacho
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Sevilla Primary Health Care Area
Jaime Cordero-Ramos
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
María Dolores Alvarado-Fernández
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
José Manuel Galiana-Auchel
Affiliation:
Medical Director, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
Miguel Ángel Calleja-Hernández
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to develop and to assess a specific Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to evaluate new drugs in an hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee (P&TC) setting.

Methods:

A pilot criteria framework was developed based on the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking) framework, together with other relevant criteria, and assessed by a group of P&TC's members. The weighting of included criteria was done using a 5-point weighting technique. Two drugs were chosen by evaluation: an orphan-drug for Gaucher disease, and a nonorphan drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence matrices were developed, and value contribution of each drug was evaluated by P&TC's members. An agreed final framework was obtained through a discussion between the P&TC's members.

Results:

After criteria assessment, the pilot framework included eight quantitative criteria: “disease severity,” “unmet needs,” “comparative efficacy/effectiveness,” “comparative safety/tolerability,” “comparative patient-reported outcomes,” “comparative cost consequences-cost of treatment,” “comparative cost consequences-other medical costs,” and “quality of evidence”; and one contextual criterion: “opportunity costs and affordability.” The most valued criteria were: “comparative safety/tolerability,” “disease severity,” and “comparative efficacy/effectiveness.” When assessing the drugs most valued characteristics of the MCDA were the possibility that all team may contribute to drug assessment by means of scoring the matrices and the discussion to reach a consensus in drug positioning and value decision making.

Conclusions:

The reflective MCDA would integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria relevant for a P&TC setting, allowing reflective discussions based on the criteria weighting score.

Keywords

Drug decision makingDrug evaluationHospital pharmacyMulti-criteria decision analysis
Type
Policy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , 2018 , pp. 519 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Multidisciplinary Commission Rational Use of Medicine (CMURM) members, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain.

We thank the anonymous referees that helped us with their comments to improve the study

References

REFERENCES

1.Hartman, M, Martin, AB, Benson, J, Catlin, A, National Health Expenditure Accounts Team. National health spending in 2011: Overall growth remains low, but some payers and services show signs of acceleration. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:87–99.Google Scholar
2.Godman, B, Wettermark, B, van Woerkom, M, et al. Multiple policies to enhance prescribing efficiency for established medicines in Europe with a particular focus on demand-side measures: Findings and future implications. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:106.Google Scholar
3.Zhang, Y, Soumerai, SB. Do newer prescription drugs pay for themselves? A reassessment of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:880–886.Google Scholar
4.Prescrire International. New products and new indications in 2016: A system that favours imitation over the pursuit of real progress. Prescrire Int. 2017;37:132–136.Google Scholar
5.Durán-García, E, Santos-Ramos, B, Puigventos-Latorre, F, Ortega, A. Literature review on the structure and operation of Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:475–483.Google Scholar
6.Tyler, LS, Cole, SW, May, JR, et al. ASHP guidelines on the pharmacy and therapeutics committee and the formulary system. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65:1272–1283.Google Scholar
7.Jenkings, KN, Barber, N. What constitutes evidence in hospital new drug decision making? Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1757–1766.Google Scholar
8.Lozano-Blázquez, A, Calvo-Pita, C, Carbajales-Álvarez, M, et al. Drug assessment by a Pharmacy and Therapeutics committee: From drug selection criteria to use in clinical practice. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2014;10:527–535.Google Scholar
9.Ortega Eslava, A, Puigventós Latorre, F, Santos-Ramos, B, et al. Caracterización y variabilidad de los informes de evaluación de medicamentos en la página web del grupo GENESIS de la SEFH. Farm Hosp. 2011;35:140–147.Google Scholar
10.Angelis, A, Kanavos, P. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: The advance value framework. Soc Sci Med. 2017;188:137–156.10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.024Google Scholar
11.Marsh, K, Zaiser, E, Orfanos, P, et al. Evaluation of COPD treatments: A multicriteria decision analysis of aclidinium and tiotropium in the United States. Value Health. 2017 Jan;20:132–140.Google Scholar
12.Wagner, M, Khoury, H, Bennetts, L, et al. Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: A multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:272.Google Scholar
13.Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, et al. Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficient Health Care Decision Making with Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Med Decis Making. 2012;32:376–388.10.1177/0272989X11416870Google Scholar
14.EVIDEM | A reflective framework to advance health.Google Scholar
15.Hernández, C, Blázquez, A, Gil, A, Xzzz, Badia. Relative value of Evidem Mcda framework for reflective drug evaluation among therapeutic positioning report evaluators from the Spanish Agency of Medicine. Value Health. 2017;20:A669.Google Scholar
16.Gilabert-Perramon, A, Torrent-Farnell, J, Catalan, A, et al. Drug evaluation and decision making in Catalonia: Development and validation of a methodological framework based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:111–120.Google Scholar
17.Aguarón, A, Fernández, A, Gimón, A, et al. Patient empowerment for healthcare decision-making assessing oncology innovation through multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health. 2017;20:A451.10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.297Google Scholar
18.Friedmann, C, Levy, P, Hensel, P, Hiligsmann, M. Using multi-criteria decision analysis to appraise orphan drugs: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18:135–146.10.1080/14737167.2018.1414603Google Scholar
19.Bentley, TGK, Cohen, JT, Elkin, EB, et al. Validity and reliability of value assessment frameworks for new cancer drugs. Value Health. 2017;20:200–205.10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011Google Scholar
20.Wagner, M, Samaha, D, Khoury, H, et al. Development of a framework based on reflective MCDA to support patient-clinician shared decision-making: The case of the management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States. Adv Ther. 2018;35:81–99.Google Scholar
21.Schey, C, Krabbe, PFM, Postma, MJ, Connolly, MP. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): Testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:10.10.1186/s13023-016-0555-3Google Scholar
22.Marra, LP, Araújo, VE, Silva, TBC, et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of analog glargine in type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Ther. 2016;7:241–258.Google Scholar
23.Badia, X, Poveda-Andrés, JL, Merino-Montero, S. Análisis descriptivo de los criterios usados en los informes de evaluación de fármacos en España. Rev Española Econ la Salud. 2017;12:180–191.Google Scholar
24.Terkola, R, Antoñanzas, F, Postma, M. Stakeholder opinions on value in healthcare. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2017 Oct;ejhpharm-2017-001295.Google Scholar
25.LINX Reflux Management System - dispositivo medico impiantabile attivo per il trattamento della malattia da reflusso gastro-esofageo (MRGE). 2013.Google Scholar