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

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

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

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

To describe the implementation of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) into a Canadian public drug reimbursement decision-making process, identifying the aspects of the MCDA approach, and the context that promoted uptake.

Narrative summary of case study describing the how, when, and why of implementing MCDA.

Faced with a fixed budget, a pipeline of expensive but potentially valuable drugs, and potential delays to drug decision making, the Ministry of Health (i.e., decision makers) and its independent expert advisory committee (IAB) sought alternative values-based decision processes. MCDA was considered highly compatible with current processes, but the ability as a stand-alone intervention to address issues of opportunity cost was unclear. The IAB nevertheless collaboratively voted to implement an externally developed MCDA with support from decision makers. After several months of engagement and piloting, implementation was rapid and leveraged strong pre-existing formal and informal communication networks. The IAB as a whole rates new submissions which serves as an input into the deliberative process.

MCDA can be a highly adaptable approach that can be implemented into a functioning drug reimbursement setting when facilitated by (i) a truly limited budget; (ii) a shared vision for change by end-users and decision makers; (iii) using pre-existing deliberative processes; and (iv) viewing the approach as a decision framework rather than the decision (when appropriate). Given the current limitations of MCDA, implementing an academically imperfect tool first and evaluating later reflects a practical solution to real-time fiscal constraints and impending delays to drug approvals that may be faced by decision makers.

Patient involvement in drug evaluation decision making is increasing. The aim of the current study was to develop a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework that would enable the inclusion of the patient perspective in the selection of appropriate criteria for MCDAs being used in the value assessments of oncologic drugs.

A literature review was conducted to identify and define criteria used in drug assessments from patient perspectives. The Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making methodology was used to develop a MCDA framework. Identified criteria were discussed by a sample of oncology patient association representatives who decided which criteria were important from patient perspectives. Selected criteria were rated by importance. The preliminary MCDA framework was tested through the assessment of a hypothetical oncology treatment. A discussion was carried out to agree on a final pilot MCDA framework.

Twenty-two criteria were extracted from the literature review. After criteria discussion, sixteen criteria remained. The most important criteria were comparative patient reported outcomes (PRO), comparative efficacy and disease severity. After the discussion generated by the scoring of the hypothetical oncology treatment, the final pilot MCDA framework included seven quantitative criteria (“disease severity”, “unmet needs”, “comparative efficacy / effectiveness”, “comparative safety / tolerability”, “comparative PROs”, “contribution of oncological innovation”) and one contextual criterion (“population priorities and access”).

The present study developed a pilot reflective MCDA framework that could increase patient's capability to participate in the decision-making process by providing systematic drug assessments from the patient perspective.