A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) applied to three long-term prophylactic treatments for hereditary angioedema in Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2333Keywords:
Drugs evaluation, Hereditary angioedema, Lanadelumab, Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), Rare diseaseAbstract
Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that impairs quality of life and could be life-threatening. The aim of this study was to apply a multicriteria decision analysis to assess the value of three long-term prophylactic (LTP) therapies for HAE in Spain.
Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of 10 experts assessed the value of lanadelumab (subcutaneous use), C1-inhibitor (C1-INH; intravenous), and danazol (orally), using placebo as comparator. We followed the EVIDEM methodology that considers a set of 13 quantitative criteria. The overall estimated value of each intervention was obtained combining the weighting of each criterion with the scoring of each intervention in each criterion. We used two alternative weighting methods: hierarchical point allocation (HPA) and direct rating scale (DRS). A reevaluation of weightings and scores was performed.
Results: Lanadelumab obtained higher mean scores than C1-INH and danazol in all criteria, except for the cost of the intervention and clinical practice guidelines. Under the HPA method, the estimated values were 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.58) for lanadelumab, 0.47 (95%CI: 0.41-0.53) for C1-INH, and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.24-0.39) for danazol. Similar results were obtained with the DRS method: 0.51 (95%CI: 0.42-0.60), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.40-0.54), and 0.27 (95%CI: 0.18-0.37), respectively. The comparative cost of the intervention was the only criterion that contributed negatively to the values of lanadelumab and C1-INH. For danazol, four criteria contributed negatively, mainly comparative safety.
Conclusion: Lanadelumab was assessed as a high-value intervention, better than C1-INH and substantially better than danazol for LTP treatment of HAE.
Downloads
References
Godman B, Malmström RE, Diogene E, et al. Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems? Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2015;8(1):77-94. https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2015.990380 PMID: 25487078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2015.990380
Nicod E, Whittal A, Drummond M, Facey K. Are supplemental appraisal/reimbursement processes needed for rare disease treatments? An international comparison of country approaches. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01462-0 PMID: 32690107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01462-0
Picavet E, Cassiman D, Hollak CE, Maertens JA, Simoens S. Clinical evidence for orphan medicinal products – a cause for concern? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8(1):164. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-164 PMID:24131572 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-8-164
Picavet E, Morel T, Cassiman D, Simoens S. Shining a light in the black box of orphan drug pricing. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-9-62PMID:24767472 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-9-62
Iskrov G, Miteva-Katrandzhieva T, Stefanov R. Multi-criteria decision analysis for assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs. Front Public Health [Internet]. 2016;4:214. [Accessed February 2017) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00214
Simoens S. Health technologies for rare diseases: does conventional HTA still apply? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):315-317. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.906903 PMID:24702042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.906903
Annemans L, Aymé S, Le Cam Y, et al. Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0601-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0601-9
Schlander M, Garattini S, Kolominsky-Rabas P, et al. Determining the value of medical technologies to treat ultra-rare disorders: a consensus statement. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2016;4:33039. PMID https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27857828/ https://doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v4.33039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v4.33039
Badia X, Chugani D, Abad MR, et al. Development and validation of an MCDA framework for evaluation and decision-making of orphan drugs in Spain. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2019;7(7-8):363-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678707.2019.1652163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21678707.2019.1652163
Drake JI, de Hart JCT, Monleón C, Toro W, Valentim J. Utilization of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support healthcare decision-making FIFARMA, 2016. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017;5(1):1360545. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1360545PMID:29081919 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1360545
Wagner M, Khoury H, Bennetts L, et al. Appraising the holistic value of lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: a multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3258-9 PMID:28412971 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3258-9
Guarga L, Badia X, Obach M, et al. Implementing reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess orphan drugs value in the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-019-1121-6 PMID:31248421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-019-1121-6
Wagner M, Samaha D, Cuervo J, et al. Applying reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to patient-clinician shared decision-making on the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish context. Adv Ther. 2018;35(8):1215-1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0745-6 PMID:29987525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0745-6
Jiménez A, Ais A, Beaudet A, Gil A. Determining the value contribution of selexipag for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in Spain using reflective multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:220. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-018-0966-4 PMID: 30526673 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-018-0966-4
Caballero Molina T, Pedrosa Delgado M, Gómez Traseira C. [Hereditary angioedema]. Med Clin (Barc). 2015;145(8):356-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2014.12.012 PMID:25726303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcle.2016.02.048
Craig T, Busse P, Gower RG, et al. Long-term prophylaxis therapy in patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(6):673-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2018.07.025 PMID:30056152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2018.07.025
Lumry WR, Castaldo AJ, Vernon MK, Blaustein MB, Wilson DA, Horn PT. The humanistic burden of hereditary angioedema: impact on health-related quality of life, productivity, and depression. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2010;31(5):407-414. https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2010.31.3394PMID:20929608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2010.31.3394
Aygören-Pürsün E, Bygum A, Beusterien K, et al. Socioeconomic burden of hereditary angioedema: results from the hereditary angioedema burden of illness study in Europe. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9(1):99. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-9-99 PMID:24996814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-9-99
Agostoni A, Aygören-Pürsün E, Binkley KE, et al. Hereditary and acquired angioedema: problems and progress: proceedings of the third C1 esterase inhibitor deficiency workshop and beyond. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(3 Suppl):S51-S131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2004.06.047 PMID: 15356535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2004.06.047
Bowen T, Cicardi M, Bork K, et al. Hereditary angioedema: a current state-of-the-art review, VII: Canadian Hungarian 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(1 Suppl 2):S30-S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1081-1206(10)60584-4 PMID: 18220150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60580-7
Zeerleder S, Levi M. Hereditary and acquired C1-inhibitor-dependent angioedema: from pathophysiology to treatment. Ann Med. 2016;48(4):256-267. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890.2016.1162909 PMID:27018196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890.2016.1162909
Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making – an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003PMID:26797229 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003
Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making – emerging good practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016 PMID: 27021745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Efficient Health Care Decision Making with Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA): Applying the EVIDEM Framework to Medicines Appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):376-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11416870. PMID: 21987539 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11416870
Maurer M, Magerl M, Ansotegui I, et al. The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema – the 2017 revision and update. Allergy. 2018;73(8):1575-1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13384 PMID: 29318628 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13384
Bork K, Bygum A, Hardt J. Benefits and risks of danazol in hereditary angioedema: a long-term survey of 118 patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(2):153-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60424-3 PMID:18320917 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60424-3
Betschel S, Badiou J, Binkley K, et al. Canadian hereditary angioedema guideline. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol 2014;10(1):50. PMID: 25352908 https://doi.org/10.1186/1710-1492-10-50 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1710-1492-10-50
Garau M, Hampson G, Devlin N, Mazzanti NA, Profico A. Applying a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach to elicit stakeholders’ preferences in Italy: The case of obinutuzumab for rituximab-refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). PharmacoEconom Open. 2018;2(2):153-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0048-xPMID:29623625 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0048-x
Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):329. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-329 PMID:22129247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-329
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Grégoire J-P, Deal C. Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2010;8(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-8-4 PMID:20377888 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-8-4
Zozaya N, Martínez-Galdeano L, Alcalá B, et al. Determining the value of two biologic drugs for chronic inflammatory skin diseases: results of a multi-criteria decision analysis. BioDrugs. 2018;32(3):281-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-0284-3 PMID:29808418 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-0284-3
Álvarez-Román MT, Cuervo-Arango I, Pérez-Santamarina R, et al. Determining the value contribution of emicizumab (Hemlibra®) for the prophylaxis of haemophilia A with inhibitors in Spain by multi-criteria decision analysis. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2019:1-8. https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2019.452 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2284240319880534
Zozaya González, N, Oliva Moreno, J, Hidalgo Vega, A. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Healthcare: its usefulness and limitations for decision making [Internet]. Fundación Weber. Madrid (Spain): Fundación Weber; 2018. (Accessed August 2021) Online http://weber.org.es/publicacion/multi-criteria-decision-analasys-in-healthcare-its-usefulness-and-limitations-for-decision-making/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.37666/L5-2018
Gilabert-Perramon A, Torrent-Farnell J, Catalan A, et al. Drug evaluation and decision making in Catalonia: development and validation of a methodological framework based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) for orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(1):111-120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462317000149 PMID:28434413 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462317000149
Friedmann C, Levy P, Hensel P, Hiligsmann M. Using multi-criteria decision analysis to appraise orphan drugs: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(2):135-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1414603 PMID:29210308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1414603
Angelis A, Kanavos P. Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(5):435-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0370-z PMID:26739955 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0370-z
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2022 The authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment agree to publish their articles under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license, which allows third parties to re-use the work without permission as long as the work is properly referenced and the use is non-commercial.
Accepted 2021-12-15
Published 2022-01-25
