RESUMEN
Objectives: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) has gained increasing attention in supporting drug risk-benefit assessment, pricing and reimbursement, as well as optimization of clinical interventions. The objective of this study was to systematically collect and categorize evaluation criteria and techniques of weighting and scoring of MCDA for drug value assessment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted across seven databases to identify articles utilizing the MCDA frameworks for the evaluation of drug value. Evaluation criteria mentioned in the included studies were extracted and assigned to 5 dimensions including clinical, economic, innovative, societal and humanistic value. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the identified drug value evaluation criteria, as well as the weighting and scoring techniques employed. The more a criterion or technique were mentioned in articles, the more important we consider it. Results: Out of the 82 articles included, 111 unique criteria were identified to evaluate the value of drug. Among the 56 unique criteria (448 times) used to measure clinical value, the most frequently mentioned were "comparative safety/tolerability" (58 times), "comparative effectiveness/efficacy" (56 times), "comparative patient-perceived health/patient reported outcomes" (37 times), "disease severity" (34 times), and "unmet needs" (25 times). Regarding economic value measurement, out of the 20 unique criteria (124 times), the most frequently utilized criteria were "cost of intervention" (17 times), "comparative other medical costs" (16 times), and "comparative non-medical costs" (18 times). Out of the 10 criteria (18 times) for assessing innovative value, "a novel pharmacological mechanism" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (5 times). Among the 22 criteria (73 times) used to measure societal value, "system capacity and appropriate use of intervention" was the most frequently cited criterion (14 times). Out of the 3 criteria (15 times) utilized to measure humanistic value, "political/historical/cultural context" was the most frequently mentioned criterion (9 times). Furthermore, 11 scoring and 11 weighting techniques were found from various MCDA frameworks. "Swing weighting" and "a direct rating scale" were the most frequently used techniques in included articles. Conclusion: This study comprehensively presented the current evaluation dimensions, criteria, and techniques for scoring and weighting in drug-oriented MCDA articles. By highlighting the frequently cited evaluation criteria and techniques for scoring and weighting, this analysis will provide a foundation to reasonably select appropriate evaluation criteria and technique in constructing the MCDA framework that aligns with research objectives.
RESUMEN
Background: Given the limitations of three-step analgesic therapy and the extensive use of traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) for cancer-related pain (CRP), this network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the efficacy and safety of different regimens of TCMIs for CRP. Methods: A literature search was conducted in seven electronic databases for all related articles published before 12 April 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened by a prior eligible criteria. The quality of literature was evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used Stata 16.0 software to analyze data including total pain relief rate, quality of life, and the incidence of adverse reactions. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the interventions. Radar map was used to exhibit the most outstanding regimen for a certain outcome. Synthetic sorting bubble diagram was performed to show the relatively better regimen by integrating two or three outcomes. Results: A total of 84 RCTs involving 8,044 patients were included. The results indicated that YDZYR + AN (Yadanziyouru injection plus analgesic) ranked first for pain relief rate, closely followed by KLT + AN (Kanglaite injection plus analgesic). AD + AN (Aidi injection plus analgesic) ranked first for quality of life, KLT + AN following closely. The total adverse reaction rate of FFKS + AN (Fufangkushen injection plus analgesic) was the lowest, and the constipation rate of FFKS was the lowest. In terms of the incidence of nausea and vomiting, KLT + AN was the best choice. In the plots analysis, the results of integrated total incidence of adverse reactions and pain relief rate analysis indicated that FFKS + AN was the most appropriate regimen. Meanwhile, it had the lowest incidence of integrated constipation, nausea and vomiting, and total adverse reactions. KLT + AN was the best in alleviating pain and improving quality of life integrated outcomes. Conclusion: In conclusion, FFKS + AN was the best treatment regimen for the pain relief rate and total adverse reaction rate, and it was also the safest regimen for CRP treatment. KLT + AN was the most effective choice. Further, compared with analgesic treatment alone for patients with CRP, TCMIs + AN combination treatment strategies are significantly more effective. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to support these conclusions. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/export_details_pdf.php), identifier (ChiCTR-ONC-CRD42021267829).
