Background The use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in health care has become common. However, the literature lacks systematic review trend analysis on the application of MCDA in health care. Aim To systematically identify applications of MCDA to the areas of health care, and to report on publication trends. Methods English language studies published from January 1, 1980 until October 1, 2013 were included. Electronic databases searches were supplemented by searching conference proceedings and relevant journals. Studies considered for inclusion were those using MCDA techniques within the areas of health care, and involving the participation of decision makers. A bibliometric analysis was undertaken to present the publication trends. Results A total of 66 citations met the inclusion criteria. An increase in publication trend occurred in the years 1990, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2008, and 2012. For the remaining years, the publication trend was either steady or declining. The trend shows that the number of publications reached its highest peak in 2012 (n = 9). Medical Decision Making was the dominant with the highest number published papers (n = 7). The majority of the studies were conducted in the US (n = 29). Medical Decision Making journal published the highest number of articles (n = 7). Analytic Hierarchy Process (n = 33) was the most used MCDA technique. Cancer was the most researched disease topic (n = 12). The most covered area of application was diagnosis and treatment (n = 26). Conclusion The review shows that MCDA has been applied to a broad range of areas in the health care, with the use of a variety of methodological approaches. Further research is needed to develop practice guidelines for the appropriate application and reporting of MCDA methods.

Objective: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. Methods:The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. Results:We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. Conclusion:MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

No abstract

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on “value for money,” i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: “breast cancer,” “systematic review/meta-analysis,” and “cost-effectiveness/economics.” Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of econo...

In this paper, a tutorial was proposed and used to estimate the transition probabilities for model-based economic evaluation, based on the results of the final PFS analysis of the BOLERO-2 trial in mBC. The results of our study can serve as a basis for any model (Markov) that needs the parameterization of transition probabilities, and only has summary KM plots available.

In recent years, the quest for more comprehensiveness, structure and transparency in reimbursement decision-making in healthcare has prompted the research into alternative decision-making frameworks. In this environment, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is arising as a valuable tool to support healthcare decision-making. In this paper, we present the main MCDA decision support methods (elementary methods, value-based measurement models, goal programming models and outranking models) using a case study approach. For each family of methods, an example of how an MCDA model would operate in a real decision-making context is presented from a critical perspective, highlighting the parameters setting, the selection of the appropriate evaluation model as well as the role of sensitivity and robustness analyses. This study aims to provide a step-by-step guide on how to use MCDA methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare.

Failure to consider drug harms such as drug-induced falls and hospitalization represents a growing public health concern, significantly underestimating the cost of sedative-hypnotic therapy and loss in quality of life for the elderly. Public payers should reconsider reimbursement of sedative-hypnotic drugs as first-line treatment for insomnia in older adults.

Purpose Based on available phase III trial data, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies that can be used in patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Patients and Methods We constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2 targeted treatment sequences in patients with HER2-positive mBC treated in the U.S. The model followed patients weekly over their remaining life expectancies. Health states considered were progression free survival (PFS) 1st to 3rd lines, and death. Transitional probabilities were based on published phase III trials. Cost data (2015 US dollars) was captured from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Health utility data were extracted from published studies. The outcomes considered were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, the incremental cost per QALY gained ratio, and the net monetary benefit. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty around key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results. Results The combination of trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and docetaxel (THP) as first-line therapy, trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) as second-line therapy, and lapatinib/capecitabine third-line resulted in 1.81 QALYs, at a cost of $335,231.35. The combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab yielded 1.41 QALYs, at a cost of $175,240.69. The least clinically effective sequence (1.27 QALYs), but most cost-effective at a total cost of $149,250.19, was trastuzumab/docetaxel as first-line therapy, T-DM1 as second-line therapy, and trastuzumab/lapatinib as third line therapy. Conclusion Our results suggest that THP as first-line therapy, followed by T-DM1 as second-line therapy, would require at least a 50% reduction in the total drug acquisition cost for it to be considered a cost-effective strategy.