Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:30:37.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DRUG EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING IN CATALONIA: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK BASED ON MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS (MCDA) FOR ORPHAN DRUGS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2017

Antoni Gilabert-Perramon ,
Josep Torrent-Farnell ,
Arancha Catalan ,
Alba Prat ,
Manel Fontanet ,
Ruth Puig-Peiró ,
Sandra Merino-Montero ,
Hanane Khoury ,
Mireille M. Goetghebeur  and
Xavier Badia
Antoni Gilabert-Perramon
Affiliation:
Gerència de Farmàcia i del Medicament; Servei Català de la Salut (CatSalut)
Josep Torrent-Farnell
Affiliation:
Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau
Arancha Catalan
Affiliation:
Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS)
Alba Prat
Affiliation:
Gerència de Farmàcia i del Medicament; Servei Català de la Salut (CatSalut)
Manel Fontanet
Affiliation:
Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau
Ruth Puig-Peiró
Affiliation:
Gerència de Farmàcia i del Medicament. Servei Català de la Salut (CatSalut)
Sandra Merino-Montero
Affiliation:
Omakase Consulting S.L.
Hanane Khoury
Affiliation:
LASER Analytica
Mireille M. Goetghebeur
Affiliation:
LASER Analytica and School of Public Health, University of Montreal (Canada)
Xavier Badia
Affiliation:
Omakase Consulting [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to adapt and assess the value of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework (EVIDEM) for the evaluation of Orphan drugs in Catalonia (Catalan Health Service).

Methods: The standard evaluation and decision-making procedures of CatSalut were compared with the EVIDEM methodology and contents. The EVIDEM framework was adapted to the Catalan context, focusing on the evaluation of Orphan drugs (PASFTAC program), during a Workshop with sixteen PASFTAC members. The criteria weighting was done using two different techniques (nonhierarchical and hierarchical). Reliability was assessed by re-test.

Results: The EVIDEM framework and methodology was found useful and feasible for Orphan drugs evaluation and decision making in Catalonia. All the criteria considered for the development of the CatSalut Technical Reports and decision making were considered in the framework. Nevertheless, the framework could improve the reporting of some of these criteria (i.e., “unmet needs” or “nonmedical costs”). Some Contextual criteria were removed (i.e., “Mandate and scope of healthcare system”, “Environmental impact”) or adapted (“population priorities and access”) for CatSalut purposes. Independently of the weighting technique considered, the most important evaluation criteria identified for orphan drugs were: “disease severity”, “unmet needs” and “comparative effectiveness”, while the “size of the population” had the lowest relevance for decision making. Test–retest analysis showed weight consistency among techniques, supporting reliability overtime.

Conclusions: MCDA (EVIDEM framework) could be a useful tool to complement the current evaluation methods of CatSalut, contributing to standardization and pragmatism, providing a method to tackle ethical dilemmas and facilitating discussions related to decision making.

Keywords

EVIDEMMulti-criteria decision analysisHealthcareDecision making
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , 2017 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Baltussen, R, Niessen, L. Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:14.Google Scholar
2. Dhalla, I, Laupacis, A. Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy. CMAJ. 2008;178:428–431.Google Scholar
3. National Health System. Spain. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. http://www.msssi.gob.es/ (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar
4. CatSalut. Servei Català de la Salut. Generalitat de Catalunya. http://catsalut.gencat.cat/ca/ (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar
5. Gilabert-Perramon, A, Betolaza, JI, March, JC, et al. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Common tools for different needs supporting healthcare decision-making in Spain. ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress. October 29 to November 2, 2016.Google Scholar
6. Devlin, NJ, Sussex, J. Incorporating multiple criteria in HTA: Methods and processes. Office of Health Economics (OHE) 2011. https://www.ohe.org/ (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar
7. Thokala, P, Duenas, A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15:1172–1181.Google Scholar
8. Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:1–13.Google Scholar
9. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking (EVIDEM). https://www.evidem.org/ (accessed June 4, 2016).Google Scholar
10. Daniels, N. Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness. J Urban Health. 1999;76:176–191.Google Scholar
11. Wagner, M, Khoury, H, Willet, J, Rindress, D, Goetghebeur, M. Can the EVIDEM framework tackle issues raised by evaluating treatments for rare diseases: Analysis of issues and policies, and context-specific adaptation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:285–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Drummond, MF. Assessing the economic challenges posed by orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:36–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Picavert, E, Cassiman, D, Simoens, S. Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: What (else) matters?. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:139.Google Scholar
14. Rosenberg-Yunger, ZRS, Daar, AS, Thorsteinsdóttir, H, Martin, DK. Priority setting for orphan drugs: An international comparison. Health Policy. 2011;100:25–34.Google Scholar
15. Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, Levitt, RJ, Erickson, LJ, Rindress, D. Evidence and value: Impact on DEcisionMaking – the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.Google Scholar
16. Goetghebeur, MM, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, Levitt, RJ, Erickson, LJ, Rindress, D. Bridging multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and health technology assessment (HTA) for efficient healthcare decision making: Proof of concept study applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:376–388.Google Scholar
17. Tony, M, Wagner, M, Khoury, H, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): Field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Services Res. 2011;11:329.Google Scholar
18. Van Til, J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C, Lieferink, M, Dolan, J, Goetghebeur, MM, Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:22.Google Scholar
19. Shrout, PE, Fleiss, JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428.Google Scholar
20 Kuna, ST, Benca, R, Kushida, CA, et al. Agreement in computer-assisted manual scoring of polysomnograms across sleep centers. Sleep. 2013;36:583–589.Google Scholar
21. Sussex, J, Rollet, P, Garau, M, Schmitt, C, Kent, A, Hutchings, A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16:1163–1169.Google Scholar
22. Paulden, M, Stafinski, T, Menon, D, McCabe, C. Value-based reimbursement decisions for orphan drugs: A scoping review and decision framework. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:255–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Radaelly, G, Lettieri, E, Masella, C. Implementation of Eunetha core Model in Lombardia: The VTS framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:105–112.Google Scholar
24. Endrei, D, Molics, B, Ágoston, I. Multicriteria decision analysis in the reimbursement of new medical technologies: Real-world experiences from Hungary. Value Health. 2014;17:487–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Schlander, M. The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): No(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:534–539.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gilabert-Perramon supplementary material

Table S1

Download Gilabert-Perramon supplementary material(File)
File 14.6 KB