Search

Introduction: In order to look beyond the cost-effectiveness analysis, this study used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which reflects societal values with regard to reimbursement decisions. This study aims to elicit societal preferences of the reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs from public and healthcare professionals., Methods: Eight criteria were defined based on a literature review and focus group sessions: disease severity, disease population size, pediatrics targets, unmet needs, innovation, clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, and budget impacts. Using quota sampling and purposive sampling, 300 participants from the Korean public and 30 healthcare professionals were selected for the survey. Preferences were elicited using an analytic hierarchy process., Results: Both groups rated clinical benefits the highest, followed by cost-effectiveness and disease severity, but differed with regard to disease population size and unmet needs. Innovation was the least preferred criteria., Conclusions: Clinical benefits and other social values should be reflected appropriately with cost-effectiveness in healthcare coverage. MCDA can be used to assess decision priorities for complicated health policy decisions, including reimbursement decisions. It is a promising method for making logical and transparent drug reimbursement decisions that consider a broad range of factors, which are perceived as important by relevant stakeholders.

In the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, four major vaccines were approved despite limited efficacy and safety data through short regulatory review periods. Thus, it is necessary to assess the benefit-risk (BR) profiles of the COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a quantitative BR assessment for four COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-based: mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2; viral vector-based: Ad26.COV.2 and ChAdOx1-S) using multi-criteria decision analysis. Three benefit criteria and two risk criteria were considered: preventing COVID-19 infection for (1) adults aged ≥18 years; (2) seniors aged 60 years or older; and (3) severe COVID-19, adverse events (AEs), and serious AEs. Data were retrieved from clinical trials, observational studies, and county-specific AE monitoring reports. Based on the collected data, vaccines were scored for each criterion. 22 professionals weighted each criterion. The overall BR score was calculated using scores and weights. mRNA-1273 was the most preferred vaccine in pre-authorization and BNT162b2 in post-authorization. We found that the mRNA vaccine had a good balance between the benefits and risks. Using this BR assessment, the benefit-risk profile of COVID-19 vaccines can be updated with cumulated data. It will contribute to building evidence for decision making by policy makers and health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The benefit-risk balance for drugs can alter post approval owing to additional data on efficacy or adverse events. This study developed a quantitative benefit-risk assessment (BRA) model for statins using multicriteria decision analysis with discrete choice experiments and compared a recent BRA with that at the time of approval.Patients and Methods: Following a systematic review of the literature, the benefit criteria within the statin BRA model were defined as a reduction in the plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and a reduction in myocardial infarction incidence; the risk criteria were hepatotoxicity (Liv) and fatal rhabdomyolysis (Rha). The scores for these criteria were estimated using mixed treatment comparison methods. Weighting was calculated from a discrete choice experiment involving 203 Korean patients. The scores and weights were integrated to produce an overall value representing the benefit-risk balance, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: In this BRA model, low-density lipoprotein (relative importance [RI]: 37.50%) was found to be a more important benefit criterion than myocardial infarction (RI: 35.43%), and Liv (RI: 16.28%) was a more important risk criterion than Rha (RI: 10.79%). Patients preferred atorvastatin, and the preference ranking of cerivastatin and simvastatin was switched post approval because of the emergence of additional risk information related to cerivastatin.Conclusion: A quantitative statin BRA model confirmed that the preference ranking of statins changed post approval because of the identification of additional benefits or risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]