Posterové sdělení ISPOR

Na základě činnosti v pracovních skupin bylo vytvořeno posterové sdělení pro konferenci ISPOR 2014.


Hajek P1, Pecen L2, Bulejova L3, Cook M4, Dolezal T5, Dolezel J6, Duba J7, Dukova I8, Fuksa L9, Heislerova M10, Jaskova K8, Karasek P11, Klimes J12, Kminek A13, Kucera Z14, Vesela Š15, Vothova P1, Svihovec J10
1Pfizer s r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, 2CEEOR s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, 3InterMune, Muttenz, Switzerland, 4BAYER s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, 5Value Outcomes, Prague, Czech Republic, 6GlaxoSmithKline, s. r. o., Prague, Czech Republic, 7OAKS Consulting s.r.o., Prague 9, Czech Republic, 8Merck, Prague, Czech Republic, 9General Health Insurance Company of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic, 10University Hospital in Motol, Prague, Czech Republic, 11Novartis s.r.o., Prague, Czech Republic, 12iHETA, Prague, Czech Republic, 13AstraZeneca, Prague, Czech Republic, 14Sanofi-Aventis, Prague, Czech Republic, 15Janssen, Prague, Czech Republic

OBJECTIVES Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is an analytical quantitative instrument focused on supporting the decision-making process between alternative products based on multiple criteria.  METHODS In the pilot study on MCDA application in HTA in the Czech Republic, the following criteria were chosen by the experts: efficacy/effectiveness, safety, budget impact, disease severity, cost effectiveness and unmet needs. The number of evaluators was 10. Each evaluator determined weights within the range from 1 to 10 (from the least to the most important). The resultant weights were displayed as an arithmetic mean of weights of the individual evaluators and as a trimmed mean with the minimum and maximum values discarded. The weights were also calculated by discarding the last evaluator, i.e. there were 4 sets of weights examined, each time normalized by 100%.  RESULTS Each evaluator rated 5 chosen medicines with weights 0, 1, 2, 3 within the chosen categories. Afterwards, the mean scores and trimmed means with the lowest and the highest values discarded were determined for each of the 5 medicinal products chosen. All 8 estimates (4 weights times 2 mean scores) lead to the identical classification of medicinal products which proves the robustness of the approach. The biggest divergences between the evaluators‘ assessment of the same medicinal product was observed in case of its safety, whereas the slightest were considered the budget impact and cost-effectiveness. On the other hand, the differences in the cost-effectiveness assessment of the 5 medicinal products considered were followed by the greatest discrepancies as regards the budget impact. The MCDA s was compared with the classifications of the medicinal products based on the ICER only which revealed significant differences (e.g., 2nd place according to the ICER vs.  5th  according to the MCDA).   CONCLUSIONS The MCDA brings new information with respect to the each criterion‘s separate application.

Plné znění vlastního posteru naleznete zde: MCDA poster Czech Rep ISPOR Amsterdam