Search

Objectives: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing attention in supporting drug risk-benefit assessment, pricing and reimbursement, as well as optimization of clinical interventions. The objective of this study was to systematically collect and categorize evaluation criteria and techniques of weighting and scoring of MCDA for drug value assessment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases to identify articles utilizing the MCDA frameworks for the evaluation of drug value. Evaluation criteria mentioned in the included studies were extracted and assigned to 5 dimensions including clinical, economic, innovative, societal and humanistic value. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the identified drug value evaluation criteria, as well as the weighting and scoring techniques employed. The more a criterion or technique were mentioned in articles, the more important we consider it. Results: Out of the 82 articles included, 111 unique criteria were identified to evaluate the value of drug. Among the 56 unique criteria (448 times) used to measure clinical value, the most frequently mentioned were "comparative safety/tolerability" (58 times), "comparative effectiveness/efficacy" (56 times), "comparative patient-perceived health/patient reported outcomes" (37 times), "disease severity" (34 times), and "unmet needs" (25 times). Regarding economic value measurement, out of the 20 unique criteria (124 times), the most frequently utilized criteria were "cost of intervention" (17 times), "comparative other medical costs" (16 times), and "comparative non-medical costs" (18 times). Out of the 10 criteria (18 times) for assessing innovative value, "a novel pharmacological mechanism" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (5 times). Among the 22 criteria (73 times) used to measure societal value, "system capacity and appropriate use of intervention" was the most frequently cited criterion (14 times). Out of the 3 criteria (15 times) utilized to measure humanistic value, "political/historical/cultural context" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (9 times). Furthermore, 11 scoring and 11 weighting techniques were found from various MCDA frameworks. "Swing weighting" and "a direct rating scale" were the most frequently used techniques in included articles. Conclusion: This study comprehensively presented the current evaluation dimensions, criteria, and techniques for scoring and weighting in drug-oriented MCDA articles. By highlighting the frequently cited evaluation criteria and techniques for scoring and weighting, this analysis will provide a foundation to reasonably select appropriate evaluation criteria and technique in constructing the MCDA framework that aligns with research objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how "incremental cost-effectiveness ratios" (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug's value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Countries face challenges in paying for new drugs. High prices are driven in part by exploding drug development costs, which, in turn, are driven by essential but excessive regulation. Burdensome regulation also delays drug development, and this can translate into thousands of life-years lost. We need system-wide reform that will enable less expensive, faster drug development. The speed with which COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS therapies were developed indicates this is possible if governments prioritize it. Countries also differ in how they value drugs, and generally, those willing to pay more have better, faster access. Canada is used as an example to illustrate how “incremental cost-effectiveness ratios” (ICERs) based on measures such as gains in “quality-adjusted life-years” (QALYs) may be used to determine a drug’s value but are often problematic, imprecise assessments. Generally, ICER/QALY estimates inadequately consider the impact of patient crossover or long post-progression survival, therapy benefits in distinct subpopulations, positive impacts of the therapy on other healthcare or societal costs, how much governments willingly might pay for other things, etc. Furthermore, a QALY value should be higher for a lethal or uncommon disease than for a common, nonlethal disease. Compared to international comparators, Canada is particularly ineffective in initiating public funding for essential new medications. Addressing these disparities demands urgent reform.

In accordance with European regulation, medicines containing a new active substance to treat neurodegenerative diseases as well as autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions must be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) through the centralized procedure before they can be marketed. However, after EMA approval, each country is responsible for national market access, following the assessment performed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with regard to the therapeutic value. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by three EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 medicines authorized in Europe for MS, including relapsing forms of MS (RMS; n = 4), relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS; n = 6), secondary progressive MS (SPMS; n = 1), and the primary progressive form (PPMS; n = 1). We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular, the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Most evaluations resulted in the lowest score (“additional benefit not proven/no clinical improvement”), underlining the need for new molecules with better efficacy and safety profiles for MS, especially for some forms and clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with European regulation, medicines containing a new active substance to treat neurodegenerative diseases as well as autoimmune and other immune dysfunctions must be approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) through the centralized procedure before they can be marketed. However, after EMA approval, each country is responsible for national market access, following the assessment performed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with regard to the therapeutic value. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by three EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 medicines authorized in Europe for MS, including relapsing forms of MS (RMS; n = 4), relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS; n = 6), secondary progressive MS (SPMS; n = 1), and the primary progressive form (PPMS; n = 1). We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular, the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Most evaluations resulted in the lowest score (“additional benefit not proven/no clinical improvement”), underlining the need for new molecules with better efficacy and safety profiles for MS, especially for some forms and clinical settings.

Even for products centrally approved, each European country is responsible for national market access after European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new neurological drugs following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 innovative medicines authorized in Europe for five neurological diseases (cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, metachromatic leukodystrophy, migraine, and polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis), including eight drugs for genetic rare diseases. We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the "added value" compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Despite the differences in terms of assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed even if with various types of limitations. The heterogeneity of the HTA assessment of clinical data among countries is probably related to the uncertainties about clinical value at the time of EMA approval and the lack of long-term data and of direct comparison with available alternatives. Given the importance of new medicines especially for rare diseases, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of inconsistency among the HTA assessments, in order to ensure rapid and uniform access to innovation for patients who can benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even for products centrally approved, each European country is responsible for national market access after European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval. This step can result in inequalities in terms of access, due to different opinions about the therapeutic value assessed by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of HTA recommendations issued by EU countries (France, Germany, and Italy) for new neurological drugs following EMA approval. In the reference period, we identified 11 innovative medicines authorized in Europe for five neurological diseases (cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, metachromatic leukodystrophy, migraine, and polyneuropathy in patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis), including eight drugs for genetic rare diseases. We found no agreement on the therapeutic value (in particular the “added value” compared to the standard of care) of the selected drugs. Despite the differences in terms of assessment, the access has been usually guaranteed even if with various types of limitations. The heterogeneity of the HTA assessment of clinical data among countries is probably related to the uncertainties about clinical value at the time of EMA approval and the lack of long-term data and of direct comparison with available alternatives. Given the importance of new medicines especially for rare diseases, it is crucial to understand and act on the causes of inconsistency among the HTA assessments, in order to ensure rapid and uniform access to innovation for patients who can benefit.

Objectives: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing attention in supporting drug risk-benefit assessment, pricing and reimbursement, as well as optimization of clinical interventions. The objective of this study was to systematically collect and categorize evaluation criteria and techniques of weighting and scoring of MCDA for drug value assessment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases to identify articles utilizing the MCDA frameworks for the evaluation of drug value. Evaluation criteria mentioned in the included studies were extracted and assigned to 5 dimensions including clinical, economic, innovative, societal and humanistic value. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the identified drug value evaluation criteria, as well as the weighting and scoring techniques employed. The more a criterion or technique were mentioned in articles, the more important we consider it. Results: Out of the 82 articles included, 111 unique criteria were identified to evaluate the value of drug. Among the 56 unique criteria (448 times) used to measure clinical value, the most frequently mentioned were "comparative safety/tolerability" (58 times), "comparative effectiveness/efficacy" (56 times), "comparative patient-perceived health/patient reported outcomes" (37 times), "disease severity" (34 times), and "unmet needs" (25 times). Regarding economic value measurement, out of the 20 unique criteria (124 times), the most frequently utilized criteria were "cost of intervention" (17 times), "comparative other medical costs" (16 times), and "comparative non-medical costs" (18 times). Out of the 10 criteria (18 times) for assessing innovative value, "a novel pharmacological mechanism" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (5 times). Among the 22 criteria (73 times) used to measure societal value, "system capacity and appropriate use of intervention" was the most frequently cited criterion (14 times). Out of the 3 criteria (15 times) utilized to measure humanistic value, "political/historical/cultural context" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (9 times). Furthermore, 11 scoring and 11 weighting techniques were found from various MCDA frameworks. "Swing weighting" and "a direct rating scale" were the most frequently used techniques in included articles. Conclusion: This study comprehensively presented the current evaluation dimensions, criteria, and techniques for scoring and weighting in drug-oriented MCDA articles. By highlighting the frequently cited evaluation criteria and techniques for scoring and weighting, this analysis will provide a foundation to reasonably select appropriate evaluation criteria and technique in constructing the MCDA framework that aligns with research objectives., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Su, Zhi, Xu, Xiao, Liu, Wang, Liu, Yu and Dang.)

Background: One of the key recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine is to take a societal perspective when evaluating new technologies-including measuring the productivity benefits of new treatments. Yet relatively little is known about the impact that new treatments have on labor productivity.Objectives: To examine the relationship between new drug treatments and gains in labor productivity across conditions in the United States and to evaluate which randomized clinical trials (RCTs) collected labor productivity data.Methods: We collected data on US-based RCTs with work-ability surveys from searches of Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials, and ClinicalTrails.gov. Combining RCT data with survey data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we assessed productivity changes from new drug treatments.Results: During the last decade, some disease conditions have seen treatments that improve ability to work by as much as 60%. The annual increase in productivity gains attributable to new drug treatments was modest 1.1% (P = 0.53). Of the 5092 RCTs reviewed, ability-to-work measures were collected in 2% of trials. Work productivity surveys were more likely among prevalent medical conditions that affected individuals who worked, earned higher wages, and experienced larger reductions in hours worked as a consequence of disease diagnosis.Conclusions: From our data, we estimated that drug innovation increased productivity by 4.8 million work days per year and $221 billion in wages per year. These labor-sector benefits should be taken into account when assessing the socially optimal cost for new drug innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indication value-based pricing (IBP) has been proposed in the United States as a tool to capture the differential value of drugs across indications or patient groups and is in the early phases of implementation. In Europe, no major country has experimented with IBP or is seriously discussing its use. We assessed how the reimbursement and pricing environment allows for IBP in seven European countries, evaluating both incentives and hurdles. In price setting countries such as France and Germany, the Health Technology Assessment and pricing process already accounts for differences of value across indications. In countries where differential value drives coverage decisions such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, IBP is likely to be used, at least partially, but not in the short-term. Italy is already achieving some form of differential value through managed entry agreements, whereas in Spain the electronic prescription system provides the infrastructure necessary for IBP but other hurdles exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]