Multi-criteria Decision Analysis for Assessing Orphan Drugs

The assessment of new medicinal treatments usually includes cost-effective analyses which estimate the efficacy of the drug, its safety, health-related quality of life benefits and the cost. This is a comparative process where a new drug is assessed in comparison to the existing treatments for that disease. In the event that there is no treatment, then the new drug is measured against the “best supportive care”. Orphan drugs are those that treat rare diseases. Frequently there are no existing treatments, and the comparison of a new, and often expensive drug with inexpensive best supportive care implies that the new treatment is not cost-effective, and might therefore not be reimbursed by payers, thereby denying patients access to much needed treatments.This research focused on developing and assessing the value of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) frameworks as tools to provide better insights on the value of orphan drugs than is provided by standard cost-effectiveness analyses. In particular, the research reviewed the criteria that should be adopted when developing MCDA frameworks, how to give the criteria different importance through weighting exercises, and how to interpret the results. Several different MCDA frameworks were developed to compare drugs within the same therapy area as well as across different diseases. Furthermore, the MCDA models were considered in the context of additional support material in the submission of documents for health technology assessments with national payers

Toxoplasmic encephalitis relapse rates with pyrimethamine-based therapy:systematic review and meta-analysis

Toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) is caused by Toxoplasma gondii infection and can be a life-threatening disease in immunocompromised patients. This study evaluated the rate of relapse associated with pyrimethamine-based maintenance therapy (i.e. secondary prophylaxis) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or AIDs treated prior to and after the common use (i.e. 1996) of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) (pre-HAART and post-HAART, respectively). PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched to 6 June 2016 using search terms: pyrimethamine, Daraprim, Fansidar, Metakelfin, Fansimef, 5-(4-chlorophenyl)-6-ethyl-2,4-pyrimidinediamine, encephalitis, cerebral, toxoplasmosis, toxoplasmic, and gondii. Single-arm cohort, retrospective, and randomized studies were included. Twenty-six studies with 1,596 patients were included in the analysis; twenty pre-HAART (n = 1,228) studies and six post-HAART (n = 368) were performed. Pooled proportions test for pyrimethamine-based therapy from pre-HAART studies indicated a relapse rate of 19.2% and 18.9% from the fixed-effects and random-effects models, respectively. The relapse rate in the post-HAART studies was 11.1% (fixed and random effects). Continuous therapy was suggestive of lower incidence of relapse compared with intermittent therapy in the pre-HAART era (range, 18.7 to 17.3% vs. 20.9 to 25.6%, respectively). These findings indicate that the likelihood of relapse associated with pyrimethamine-based therepy in patients with HIV and TE decreased after the introduction of HAART to approximately 11%. The findings have important implications as relapse may affect a patient's disease severity and prognosis, increase utilization of health care resources, and result in additional health care expenditure.</p

Assessing the Preferences for Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Treatments for Rare Diseases

Background: Increasingly, multi-criteria decision analysis has gained importance as a method by which to assess the value of orphan drugs. However, very little attention has been given to the weight (relative preferences) of the individual criteria used in a framework. Aims: This study sought to gain an understanding of the preferential weights that should be allocated in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework for orphan drugs, from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Method: Using key MCDA criteria for orphan drugs reported in the literature, we developed an interactive web-based survey tool to capture preferences for different criteria from a general stakeholder sample who were requested to assign weights from a reimbursement perspective. Each criterion could be assigned a weight on a sliding scale from 0 to 100% as long as the sum of all the criteria was 100%. We subsequently used the interactive tool with an expert focus group, followed up with a group discussion regarding each criterion and their perspectives on the weight that each criterion should be allocated when assessing an orphan drug. The expert focus group participants were then able to adjust their weights, if the group discussion had changed their perspectives. Results: The interactive tool was completed by 120 general stakeholder sample from a wide range of countries and professional backgrounds and an expert focus group of ten members. The results showed the differences in perspectives on the importance of criteria. Both groups considered Treatment efficacy to be the most important criterion. The general stakeholder sample weighted Treatment safety at 12.03% compared to the expert focus group's average of 20%. The results also demonstrated the value of the group discussion, which provided additional insights into the perspectives on the importance of criteria in assessing orphan drugs. Conclusion: This study aimed to contribute to the important aspect of preferences for different criteria in MCDA. This study sheds light on the important aspect of the preferences of the different criteria. All respondents agreed on the relative importance of Treatment efficacy and Treatment safety, criteria that are captured in conventional cost-effectiveness studies, but they also expressed the view that in addition to those, several disease-related and drug-related criteria should be included in MCDA frameworks for assessing orphan drugs