A Multiple Stakeholder Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Diabetic Macular Edema Management: The MULTIDEX-EMD Study

Abstract

Background The clinical and economic management of retinal diseases has become more complex following the introduction of new intravitreal treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers the potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional decision-making tools. Objectives A MCDA to determine the most relevant criteria to decision-making in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME) based on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in Spain was developed. This MCDA was termed the MULTIDEX-EMD study. Methods Nineteen stakeholders (7 physicians, 4 pharmacists, 5 health authorities and health management experts, 1 psychologist, and 2 patient representatives) participated in this three-phase project. In phase A, an advisory board defined all of the criteria that could influence DME treatment decision-making. These criteria were then screened using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) (phase B). Next, a multinomial logit model was fitted by applying the backward elimination algorithm (relevant criteria: p value < 0.05). Finally, the results were discussed in a deliberative process (phase C). Results Thirty-one criteria were initially defined (phase A) and grouped into 5 categories: efficacy/effectiveness, safety, organizational and economic impact, patient-reported outcomes, and other therapeutic features. The DCE results (phase B) showed that 10 criteria were relevant to the decision-making process for a 50-to 65-year-old DME patient: mean change in best corrected visual acuity (p value < 0.001), percentage of patients with an improvement of ≥ 15 letters (p value < 0.001), effect duration per administration (p value = 0.008), retinal detachment (p value < 0.001), endophthalmitis (p value = 0.012), myocardial infarction (p value < 0.001), intravitreal hemorrhage (p value = 0.021), annual treatment cost per patient (p value = 0.001), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p value = 0.004), and disability level (p value = 0.021). Conclusions From a multi-stakeholder perspective, the selection of an appropriate treatment for DME patients should guarantee patient safety and maximize the visual acuity improvement and treatment effect duration. It should also contribute to system sustainability by being affordable, it should have a positive impact on HRQoL, and it should prevent disability.

A multi-criteria decision analysis on the value of nintedanib for interstitial lung diseases

“…First, a committee of twelve experts was formed, including four clinicians (two pneumologists, one rheumatologist, and one internal medicine physician), one nurse, two patients (one with non-IPF PF-ILD and one with SSc-ILD), two healthcare managers, two hospital pharmacists, and one health economist. The number of experts, as well as its composition (i.e., different profiles and perspectives included) is in line with previously published MCDA in the context of estimating the value of a drug in comparison to an alternative treatment (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17).…”

The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review

“…In recent decades, several “value frameworks” have been applied to evaluate the drug value in the health technology assessment (HTA) in the world ( de Andrés-Nogales et al, 2020 ; de Andrés-Nogales et al, 2021 ; Hummel et al, 2012 ). These frameworks are employed to facilitate dynamic drug supervision, promote clinical rational drug use, adjust coverage and reimbursement decisions, and support drug marketing ( Yu et al, 2023 ).…”