[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives: Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking. METHOD: An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured. RESULTS: Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 39 were included in the study. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 338 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (33 times), efficacy/effectiveness (28), healthcare stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (24), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (18), need (16), organizational requirements and capacity (18) and patient-reported outcomes (16). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-setting.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Rotavirus affects 95% of children worldwide by age 5 years and is the leading cause of severe dehydrating diarrhea. The objective of this review was to estimate the burden of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in the Western European pediatric population.
A comprehensive literature search (1999-2010) was conducted in PubMed and other sources (CDC; WHO, others). Data on the epidemiology and burden of RVGE among children < 5 years-old in Western Europe --including hospital-acquired disease--were extracted.
76 studies from 16 countries were identified. The mean percentage of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) cases caused by rotavirus ranged from 25.3%-63.5% in children < 5 years of age, peaking during winter. Incidence rates of RVGE ranged from 1.33-4.96 cases/100 person- years. Hospitalization rates for RVGE ranged from 7% to 81% among infected children, depending on the country. Nosocomial RVGE accounted for 47%-69% of all hospital-acquired AGE and prolonged hospital stays by 4-12 days. Each year, RVGE incurred $0.54- $53.6 million in direct medical costs and $1.7-$22.4 million in indirect costs in the 16 countries studied. Full serotyping data was available for 8 countries. G1P, G2P, G9P, and G3P were the most prevalent serotypes (cumulative frequency: 57.2%- 98.7%). Serotype distribution in nosocomial RVGE was similar.
This review confirms that RVGE is a common disease associated with significant morbidity and costs across Western Europe. A vaccine protecting against multiple serotypes may decrease the epidemiological and cost burden of RVGE in Western Europe.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Systematic and transparent approaches to priority setting are needed, particularly in low-resource settings, to produce decisions that are sound and acceptable to stakeholders. The EVIDEM framework brings together Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by proposing a comprehensive set of decision criteria together with standardized processes to support decisionmaking. The objective of the study was to field test the framework for decisionmaking on a screening test by a private health plan in South Africa.
Liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical cancer screening was selected by the health plan for this field test. An HTA report structured by decision criterion (14 criteria organized in the MCDA matrix and 4 contextual criteria) was produced based on a literature review and input from the health plan. During workshop sessions, committee members 1) weighted each MCDA decision criterion to express their individual perspectives, and 2) to appraise LBC, assigned scores to each MCDA criterion on the basis of the by-criterion HTA report.Committee members then considered the potential impacts of four contextual criteria on the use of LBC in the context of their health plan. Feedback on the framework and process was collected through discussion and from a questionnaire.
For 9 of the MCDA matrix decision criteria, 89% or more of committee members thought they should always be considered in decisionmaking. Greatest weights were given to the criteria "Budget impact", "Cost-effectiveness" and "Completeness and consistency of reporting evidence". When appraising LBC for cervical cancer screening, the committee assigned the highest scores to "Relevance and validity of evidence" and "Disease severity". Combination of weights and scores yielded a mean MCDA value estimate of 46% (SD 7%) of the potential maximum value. Overall, the committee felt the framework brought greater clarity to the decisionmaking process and was easily adaptable to different types of health interventions.
The EVIDEM framework was easily adapted to evaluating a screening technology in South Africa, thereby broadening its applicability in healthcare decision making.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Consistent healthcare decision making requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time.
Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates.
The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee.
By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.
BMC Health Services Research 11/2011; 11:329. · 1.77 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Health care decision making is complex and requires efficient and explicit processes to ensure transparency and consistency of factors considered.
To pilot an adaptable decision-making framework incorporating multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health technology assessment (HTA) with a pan-Canadian group of policy and clinical decision makers and researchers appraising 10 medicines covering 6 therapeutic areas.
An appraisal group was convened and participants were asked to express their individual perspectives, independently of the medicines, by assigning weights to each criterion of the MCDA core model: disease severity, size of population, current practice and unmet needs, intervention outcomes (efficacy, safety, patient reported), type of health benefit, economics, and quality of evidence. Participants then assigned performance scores for each medicine using available evidence synthesized in a "by-criterion" HTA report covering each of the MCDA CORE model criteria. MCDA estimates of perceived value were calculated by combining normalized weights and scores. Feedback on the approach was collected through structured discussion.
Relative weights on criteria varied widely, reflecting the diverse perspectives of participants. Scores for each criterion provided a performance measure, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each medicine. MCDA estimates of perceived value ranged from 0.42 to 0.64 across medicines, providing comprehensive measures incorporating a large spectrum of criteria. Participants reported that the framework provided an efficient approach to systematic consideration in a pragmatic format of the multiple elements guiding decision, including criteria and values (MCDA core model) and evidence (HTA "by-criterion" report).
This proof-of-concept study demonstrated the usefulness of incorporating MCDA in HTA to support transparent and systematic appraisal of health care interventions. Further research is needed to advance MCDA-based approaches to more effective healthcare decision making.
Medical Decision Making 10/2011; 32(2):376-88. · 2.89 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Rotaviral gastroenteritis (RVGE) is the leading cause of severe diarrhea in children under five years of age worldwide. This comprehensive review aims to estimate the burden of RVGE among children in Central and Eastern Europe.
An extensive search of the biomedical literature (1999-2009) was conducted in major databases. Studies pertaining to the epidemiology and burden of rotavirus in Central and Eastern Europe were captured and data from each country was systematically extracted and compared.
This literature search captured 38 studies pertaining to RVGE infection in the region. Among children under 15 years of age, RVGE accounted for between 22.0% and 55.3% of all cases of acute gastroenteritis per year. For most countries RVGE was most common in the winter months, although it was reported year round in Bulgaria. Geographical comparison of genotyping data revealed that three genotype combinations, G1P, G4P, and G2P were present in all countries for which full genotyping data was available. Genotype predominance varied on a season to season basis within each country. Only limited data was available for healthcare resource utilization, and economic burden for this region.
RVGE is a common disease associated with significant morbidity, and mortality. While three genotype combinations currently predominate in the region, the dominance of a certain serotype can change dramatically from year to year and from country to country. A vaccination program with broad serotype coverage may help to decrease the burden of RVGE in Central and Eastern Europe.
Human vaccines 05/2011; 7(5):523-33. · 3.14 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) is the most common cause of severe childhood diarrhea worldwide. Objectives were to estimate the burden of RVGE among children less than five years old in the Middle East (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, Yemen), North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia) and Turkey.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in major databases on the epidemiology and burden of rotavirus among children less than five years old between 1999 and 2009. Data from each country was extracted and compared.
The search identified 43 studies. RVGE was identified in 16-61% of all cases of acute gastroenteritis, with a peak in the winter. RVGE-related hospitalization rates ranged from 14% to 45%, compared to 14%-28% for non-RVGE. Annually, RVGE caused up to 112 fatalities per 100,000 in certain countries in the region. Hospitalization costs ranged from $1.8 to $4.6 million annually, depending on the country. The most recent literature available showed that G1P was the most prevalent genotype combination in 8 countries (range 23%-56%). G2P was most prevalent in 4 countries (26%-48%). G9P and G4P were also frequently detected.
RVGE is a common disease associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Given the variety and diverse rotavirus types in the region, use of a vaccine with broad and consistent serotype coverage would be important to help decrease the burden of RVGE in the Middle East and North Africa.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To test and further develop a healthcare policy and clinical decision support framework using growth hormone (GH) for Turner syndrome (TS) as a complex case study.
The EVIDEM framework was further developed to complement the multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Value Matrix, that includes 15 quantifiable components of decision clustered in four domains (quality of evidence, disease, intervention and economics), with a qualitative tool including six ethical and health system-related components of decision. An extensive review of the literature was performed to develop a health technology assessment report (HTA) tailored to each component of decision, and content was validated by experts. A panel of representative stakeholders then estimated the MCDA value of GH for TS in Canada by assigning weights and scores to each MCDA component of decision and then considered the impact of non-quantifiable components of decision.
Applying the framework revealed significant data gaps and the importance of aligning research questions with data needs to truly inform decision. Panelists estimated the value of GH for TS at 41% of maximum value on the MCDA scale, with good agreement at the individual level (retest value 40%; ICC: 0.687) and large variation across panelists. Main contributors to this panel specific value were "Improvement of efficacy", "Disease severity" and "Quality of evidence". Ethical considerations on utility, efficiency and fairness as well as potential misuse of GH had mixed effects on the perceived value of the treatment.
This framework is proposed as a pragmatic step beyond the current cost-effectiveness model, combining HTA, MCDA, values and ethics. It supports systematic consideration of all components of decision and available evidence for greater transparency. Further testing and validation is needed to build up MCDA approaches combined with pragmatic HTA in healthcare decision-making.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Incremental Decrease in End-Points Through Aggressive Lipid-Lowering (IDEAL) trial demonstrated incremental cardiovascular benefit of treatment with high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg/ day) versus standard-dose simvastatin (20 mg/day to 40 mg/day) in 8888 patients with a previous myocardial infarction (MI) over a median follow-up period of 4.8 years.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin versus standard-dose simvastatin treatment in patients with a history of MI from a Canadian societal perspective.
In a within-trial analysis, end point-related events, resources used and productivity losses occurring during the IDEAL trial were aggregated by treatment arm on an intention-to-treat basis to calculate the incremental cost per event avoided. Additionally, quality-adjusted survival was projected using a lifetime Markov model. Transition probabilities, workdays lost, use of study medication and cardiovascular hospitalization rates were based on IDEAL trial data. Hospitalization, study medication and productivity costs were included. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.
Compared with standard-dose simvastatin, atorvastatin 80 mg led to 0.099 fewer events per patient and cost savings over 4.8 years of treatment. Over a lifetime horizon, atorvastatin 80 mg led to 0.023 qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient at an incremental cost of $26,795/QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained below $50,000/QALY in 78% of 1000 simulations. Exclusion of indirect costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $38,834/QALY. Results were relatively sensitive to baseline age, but robust with respect to sex, baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, diabetes status and hospitalization costs.
From a Canadian societal perspective, high-dose atorvastatin is cost-effective compared with standard-dose simvastatin in patients with a previous MI.
The Canadian journal of cardiology 11/2009; 25(11):e362-9. · 3.12 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Streptococcus pneumoniae infections in adults are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and costs. A literature review was conducted to identify strengths and limitations of the cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine studies. A comparative analysis of the impact of model parameters on cost-effectiveness ratios was complemented by systematic assessment of the studies. We identified 11 economic evaluations of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV-23) in adults. In general, all 11 studies found that vaccination with PPV-23 is a cost-effective, and in some cases a cost-saving strategy for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). The systematic assessment indicated that the results of the cost-effectiveness studies of PPV-23 are influenced by the values applied to vaccine efficacy, IPD incidence and case-fatality.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The TNT study compared high dose atorvastatin (80 mg) versus moderate atorvastatin (10 mg) treatment in 10,001 patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD), over 4.9 years. Intensive lipid-lowering with atorvastatin (80 mg) reduced major cardiovascular events by 22%.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive lipid-lowering versus moderate lipid lowering treatment from the perspective of the Canadian Ministries of Health.
A lifetime Markov model was developed to predict cardiovascular (CV) events, costs, survival, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for CHD patients receiving 80 mg versus 10 mg of atorvastatin. Predictions were also made for 10- and 5-year horizons. Treatment-specific event risks were used until five years. Beyond year five, equivalent CV risks were assumed for all patients. Medical-care costs and post-event survival were estimated using Canadian data. Health utility scores were obtained from published studies. Benefits and costs were discounted 5% annually. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.
Treatment with atorvastatin (80 mg) over a lifetime horizon resulted in increased costs (Can$16,542 vs. Can$15,365), survival (10.12 vs. 10.03 life years), and QALYs (7.71 vs. 7.61) per patient compared with atorvastatin (10 mg), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness of Can$12,946 per life year gained and Can$11,969 per QALY. The incremental cost per QALY remained below Can$50,000 in 98.1% of 1000 simulations. Results were robust to variations in event hazard ratios, costs, health utility values, and discount rate.
Intensive atorvastatin (80 mg) treatment is predicted to be cost-effective versus atorvastatin (10 mg) for CHD patients in Canada.
The Canadian journal of clinical pharmacology = Journal canadien de pharmacologie clinique 02/2009; 16(2):e331-45.