Search

Background Since 2010, 27 mixed-treatment comparisons (MTCs) of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis have been published. However, there has been continued evolution in the field of MTCs. Additionally, limitations in methodological approach and reporting transparency, even in the most recent publications, makes interpretation and comparison of existing studies difficult. Objectives The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to estimate the efficacy and safety of DMTs at European Commission-approved doses compared with placebo in adults with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using MTC, and (2) to identify and address methodological challenges when performing MTC in RRMS, thereby creating a baseline for comparisons with future treatments. Methods Searches were completed in 14 databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CDSR and DARE, from inception to June 2018 to identify published or unpublished prospective, randomised controlled trials of all European Union-approved DMTs or DMTs expected to be approved in the near future in RRMS or rapidly-evolving severe RRMS. No language or date restrictions were applied. Studies were included in the MTC if they were judged to have sufficiently similar characteristics, based on the following: patient age; proportion of male participants; Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score; duration of disease; number of relapses prior to enrolment and proportion of previously treated patients. Background information from the included studies, as well as effect size and confidence intervals (where relevant) of defined outcomes were extracted. Reporting of the MTC was consistent with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) network meta-analysis guidelines. Results In total, 33 studies were included in the MTC. Annualised relapse rate (ARR 28 trials) was significantly reduced in all treatments compared with placebo. Alemtuzumab had the highest probability (63%) of being the most effective treatment in terms of ARR compared with placebo (rate ratio [RR] 0.28, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.21–0.38), followed by natalizumab (30% probability; RR 0.32, 95% CrI 0.23–0.43). The risk of 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP3M, 13 trials; CDP6M, 14 trials) were similar; CDP6M was significantly reduced for alemtuzumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.365; 95% CrI 0.165–0.725), ocrelizumab (HR 0.405, 95% CrI 0.188–0.853) and natalizumab (HR 0.459, 95% CrI 0.252–0.840) relative to placebo. There were no significant differences in the odds of serious adverse events (SAEs, 6 trials) between any treatment and placebo. The results of the MTC were limited by the lack of studies reporting direct comparisons between the included treatments and by heterogeneous reporting of key outcome data. Conclusions Meta-analyses confirmed the benefit of all DMTs in terms of relapse rate compared with placebo with a comparable rate of SAEs for the DMTs that could be included in the network. The rigor and transparency of reporting in this study provide a benchmark for comparisons with future new agents. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00212-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are increasingly important in the assessment of the benefit–risk profile of pharmaceutical treatments for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Interpretation of MTCs requires a clear understanding of the methods of analysis and population studied. The objectives of this work were to compare MTCs of pharmaceutical treatments for RRMS, including a detailed description of differences in populations, treatments assessed, methods used and findings; and to discuss key considerations when conducting an MTC. Methods Fourteen databases were searched until July 2019 to identify MTCs (published during or after 2010) in adults (at least 18 years of age) with RRMS or rapidly evolving severe RRMS treated with any form of pharmaceutical treatment. No language restriction was imposed. Results Twenty-seven MTCs assessing 21 treatments were identified. Comparison highlighted many differences in conduct and reporting between MTCs relating to the patient populations or treatments included, duration of follow-up and outcomes of interest measured. The lack of similarity between the MTCs leads to questions about variability in the robustness of analyses and makes comparisons between studies challenging. Conclusion Given the importance of MTCs for healthcare decision-making, it is imperative that reporting of methods, results and assumptions is clear and transparent to allow accurate interpretation of findings. For MTCs to be relevant, the choice of outcome measures should reflect clinical practice. Combination of treatments or of outcomes measured at different points of time should be avoided, as should imputation without justification. Furthermore, all approved treatment options should be included and updates of MTCs should be conducted when data for new treatments are published. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40120-020-00213-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives.To estimate the preferences of osteoporotic patients for medication attributes, and analysedata from seven European countries.Methods.A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands,Spain, Switzerland and the UK. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypotheticalunlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that varied with respect to four attributes: efficacy inreducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side effects, and mode and frequency of admin-istration. In those countries in which patients contribute to the cost of their treatment directly, a fifthattribute was added: out-of-pocket cost. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients’preferences.Results.In total, 1124 patients completed the experiment, with a sample of between 98 and 257 patientsper country. In all countries, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness, and 6-monthly subcuta-neous injection was always preferred over weekly oral tablets. In five countries, patients also preferred amonthly oral tablet and yearly i.v. injections over weekly oral tablets. In the three countries where the out-of-pocket cost was included as an attribute, lower costs significantly contributed to the treatment preference.Between countries, there were statistically significant differences for 13 out of 42 attribute/level interactions.Conclusion.We found statistically significant differences in patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosismedications between countries, especially for the mode of administration. Our findings emphasized thatinternational treatment recommendations should allow for local adaptation, and that understanding individ-ual preferences is important if we want to improve the quality of clinical care for patients with osteoporosis.

Background: Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical. Objective: This study aimed to characterize stakeholders’ attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with academics (n = 24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n = 24), industry representatives (n = 24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n = 24), physicians (n = 24), and regulators (n = 23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group. Results: Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders’ understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients’ understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results. Conclusions: Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Contains fulltext : 200589.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening can reduce cancer mortality. Most implementation studies focus only on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and clinical attributes of screening and do not include preferences of potential participants. In this study we evaluated the perceived value of screening programs based on LDCT, breath analysis (BA), or blood biomarkers (BB) according to the perspective of the target population. METHODS: A multi-criteria decision analysis framework was adopted. The weights of seven attributes of screening (sensitivity, specificity, radiation burden, duration of screening process, waiting time until results are communicated, location of screening, and mode of screening) were obtained from an earlier study that included a broad sample from the Netherlands. Performance data for the screening modalities was obtained from clinical trials and expert opinion. Parameter uncertainty about clinical performances was incorporated probabilistically, while heterogeneity in preferences was analyzed through subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The mean overall values were 0.58 (CI: 0.57 to 0.59), 0.57 (CI: 0.56 to 0.59), and 0.44 (CI: 0.43 to 0.45) for BB, BA, and LDCT, respectively. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents preferred BB or BA. For most subgroups, the overall values were similar to those of the entire sample. BA had the highest value for respondents who would have been eligible for earlier screening trials. DISCUSSION: BB and BA seem valuable to participants because they can be applied in a primary care setting. Although LDCT still seems preferable given its strong and positive evidence base, it is important to take non-clinical attributes into account to maximize attendance.

Background Pregnant women can misinform or withhold their reproductive and medical information from providers when they interact with them during care decision-making interactions, although, the information clients reveal or withhold while seeking care plays a critical role in the quality of care provided. This study explored ‘how’ and ‘why’ pregnant women in Ghana control their past obstetric and reproductive information as they interact with providers at their first antenatal visit, and how this influences providers’ decision-making at the time and in subsequent care encounters. Methods This research was a case-study of two public hospitals in southern Ghana, using participant observation, conversations, interviews and focus group discussions with antenatal, delivery, and post-natal clients and providers over a 22-month period. The Ghana Health Service Ethical Review Committee gave ethical approval for the study (Ethical approval number: GHS-ERC: 03/01/12). Data analysis was conducted according to grounded theory. Results Many of the women in this study selectively controlled the reproductive, obstetric and social history information they shared with their provider at their first visit. They believed that telling a complete history might cause providers to verbally abuse them and they would be regarded in a negative light. Examples of the information controlled included concealing the actual number of children or self-induced abortions. The women adopted this behaviour as a resistance strategy to mitigate providers’ disrespectful treatment through verbal abuses and questioning women’s practices that contradicted providers’ biomedical ideologies. Secondly, they utilised this strategy to evade public humiliation because of inadequate privacy in the hospitals. The withheld information affected quality of care decision-making and care provision processes and outcomes, since misinformed providers were unaware of particular women’s risk profile. Conclusion Many mothers in this study withhold or misinform providers about their obstetric, reproductive and social information as a way to avoid receiving disrespectful maternal care and protect their privacy. Improving provider client relationship skills, empowering clients and providing adequate infrastructure to ensure privacy and confidentiality in hospitals, are critical to the provision of respectful maternal care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1916-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: Several studies have reported multiple barriers to and facilitators for the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA) information by policy makers. This study elicited, using best-worst scaling (BWS), the most important barriers and facilitators and their relative weight in the use of HTA by policy makers.Methods: Two BWS object case surveys (one for barriers, one for facilitators) were conducted among sixteen policy makers and thirty-three HTA experts in the Netherlands. A list of twenty-two barriers and nineteen facilitators was included. In each choice task, participants were asked to choose the most important and the least important barrier/facilitator from a set of five. We used Hierarchical Bayes modeling to generate the mean relative importance score (RIS) for each factor and a subgroup analysis was conducted to assess differences between policy makers and HTA experts.Results: The five most important barriers (RIS > 6.00) were “no explicit framework for decision-making process,” “insufficient support by stakeholders,” “lack of support,” “limited generalizability,” and “absence of appropriate incentives.” The six most important facilitators were: “availability of explicit framework for decision making,” “sufficient support by stakeholders,” “appropriate incentives,” “sufficient quality,” “sufficient awareness,” and “sufficient support within the organization.” Overall, perceptions did not differ markedly between policy makers and HTA experts.Conclusions: Our study suggests that barriers and facilitators related to “policy characteristics” and “organization and resources” were particularly important. It is important to stimulate a pulse at the national level to create an explicit framework for including HTA in the decision-making context.

Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) has become a popular method to compare more than two treatments. This scoping review aimed to explore the characteristics and methodological quality of knowledge synthesis approaches underlying the NMA process. We also aimed to assess the statistical methods applied using the Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist. Methods Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until April 14, 2015. References of relevant reviews were scanned. Eligible studies compared at least four different interventions from randomised controlled trials with an appropriate NMA approach. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data abstraction of included articles. All discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. Data analysis involved quantitative (frequencies) and qualitative (content analysis) methods. Quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool for the conduct of knowledge synthesis and the ISPOR tool for statistical analysis. Results After screening 3538 citations and 877 full-text papers, 456 NMAs were included. These were published between 1997 and 2015, with 95% published after 2006. Most were conducted in Europe (51%) or North America (31%), and approximately one-third reported public sources of funding. Overall, 84% searched two or more electronic databases, 62% searched for grey literature, 58% performed duplicate study selection and data abstraction (independently), and 62% assessed risk of bias. Seventy-eight (17%) NMAs relied on previously conducted systematic reviews to obtain studies for inclusion in their NMA. Based on the AMSTAR tool, almost half of the NMAs incorporated quality appraisal results to formulate conclusions, 36% assessed publication bias, and 16% reported the source of funding. Based on the ISPOR tool, half of the NMAs did not report if an assessment for consistency was conducted or whether they accounted for inconsistency when present. Only 13% reported heterogeneity assumptions for the random-effects model. Conclusions The knowledge synthesis methods and analytical process for NMAs are poorly reported and need improvement. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0764-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.