MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS AS A DECISION-SUPPORT TOOL FOR DRUG EVALUATION: A PILOT STUDY IN A PHARMACY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE SETTING.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop and to assess a specific Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to evaluate new drugs in an hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committee (P&TC) setting.

METHODS

A pilot criteria framework was developed based on the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking) framework, together with other relevant criteria, and assessed by a group of P&TC's members. The weighting of included criteria was done using a 5-point weighting technique. Two drugs were chosen by evaluation: an orphan-drug for Gaucher disease, and a nonorphan drug for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence matrices were developed, and value contribution of each drug was evaluated by P&TC's members. An agreed final framework was obtained through a discussion between the P&TC's members.

RESULTS

After criteria assessment, the pilot framework included eight quantitative criteria: "disease severity," "unmet needs," "comparative efficacy/effectiveness," "comparative safety/tolerability," "comparative patient-reported outcomes," "comparative cost consequences-cost of treatment," "comparative cost consequences-other medical costs," and "quality of evidence"; and one contextual criterion: "opportunity costs and affordability." The most valued criteria were: "comparative safety/tolerability," "disease severity," and "comparative efficacy/effectiveness." When assessing the drugs most valued characteristics of the MCDA were the possibility that all team may contribute to drug assessment by means of scoring the matrices and the discussion to reach a consensus in drug positioning and value decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The reflective MCDA would integrate quantitative and qualitative criteria relevant for a P&TC setting, allowing reflective discussions based on the criteria weighting score.