would seem most relevant to different stakeholders. Methods: A landscape review was performed in Medline and EMBASE. Initial search retrieved over 2000 articles. After a selection based on reference to healthcare, policy issues, or social justice, 64 papers were included. Data were extracted and a full table was made, including all arguments found; next, identical or largely overlapping criteria were excluded and a reduced set was compiled. Results: The final set included 26 arguments, categorized by type (clinical, social justice, ethical, and policy). Examples of arguments included in the final set are: Longevity, need, dignity and public health value. For each argument, relevance to stakeholders was scored on three levels (not, partly, and completely relevant). ConClusions: Many arguments play a role in making decisions about patient treatments, but not all are relevant to all interventions. Moreover, they may interact with each other. Therefore, systematic and analytical approaches such as multi-criteria decision analysis may be not suitable. As such, a viable way to deal with interacting and possibly conflicting arguments might be to arrange public discussions that would evoke different stakeholders' perspectives.
PHP209 Fda BreaktHrougH Medicines; Have tHey caused BreaktHrougHHeadacHes For Hta agencies?
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.