Development of a Value Assessment Framework for Pediatric Health Technologies Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Expanding the Value Lens for Funding Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: A health technology assessment (HTA) does not systematically account for the circumstances and needs of children and youth. To supplement HTA processes, we aimed to develop a child-tailored value assessment framework using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. METHODS: We constructed a multicriteria-decision-analysis-based model in multiple phases to create the Comprehensive Assessment of Technologies for Child Health (CATCH) framework. Using a modified Delphi process with stakeholders having broad disciplinary and geographic variation (N = 23), we refined previously generated criteria and developed rank-based weights. We established a criterion-pertinent scoring rubric for assessing incremental benefits of new drugs. Three clinicians independently assessed comprehension by pilotscoring 9 drugs. We then validated CATCH for 2 childhood cancer therapies through structured deliberation with an expert panel (N = 10), obtaining individual scores, consensus scores, and verbal feedback. Analyses included descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, exploratory disagreement indices, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The modified Delphi process yielded 10 criteria, based on absolute importance/relevance and agreed importance (median disagreement indices = 0.34): Effectiveness, Child-specific Health-related Quality of Life, Disease Severity, Unmet Need, Therapeutic Safety, Equity, Family Impacts, Life-course Development, Rarity, and Fair Share of Life. Pilot scoring resulted in adjusted criteria definitions and more precise score-scaling guidelines. Validation panelists endorsed the framework's key modifiers of value. Modes of their individual prescores aligned closely with deliberative consensus scores. CONCLUSIONS: We iteratively developed a value assessment framework that captures dimensions of child-specific health and nonhealth gains. CATCH could improve the richness and relevance of HTA decision making for children in Canada and comparable health systems.

Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions.

INTRODUCTION: The unique evidentiary, economic and ethical challenges associated with health technology assessment (HTA) of precision therapies limit access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth, for whom such challenges are amplified. We elicited citizens' perspectives about values-based criteria relevant to the assessment of paediatric precision therapies to inform the development of a child-tailored HTA framework. METHODS: We held four citizen panels virtually in May-June 2021, informed by a plain-language citizen brief summarizing global and local evidence about the challenges, policy and programmatic options and implementation strategies related to enhancing access to precision therapies for Canadian children and youth. Panellists were recruited through a nationally representative database, medical/patient networks and social media. We inductively coded and thematically analysed panel transcripts to generate themes and identify priority values. RESULTS: The perspectives of panellists (n = 45) coalesced into four overlapping themes, with attendant subthemes, relevant to a child-tailored HTA framework: (1) Childhood Distinctions: vulnerability, 'fair innings', future potential, family impacts; (2) Voice: agency of children and youth; lived versus no lived experience; (3) One versus Many: disease severity, rarity, equity, unmet need and (4) Health System Governance: funding, implementation inequities, effectiveness and safety. Participants broadly agreed that childhood distinctions, particularly family impacts, justify child-tailored HTA. Dissent arose over whose voice should inform HTA and how such perspectives are best incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: Citizens can offer unique insights into criteria relevant to the development or revision of HTA frameworks to capture holistic, societally responsive dimensions of value attached to unique contexts or populations, including children. Balancing the hopes and expectations of patients and caregivers for access to expensive but potential life-altering therapies against the opportunity costs borne by encompassing health systems is a fundamental challenge that will require rigorous methods to elicit, weigh and reconcile varied views. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient advocate served on the steering committee of this study and co-authored this article. Key informants for the Citizen Brief included patient advocates and caregivers; a separate patient advocate reviewed the Brief before dissemination. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the general public and caregivers of children, with written consent.

Ensuring access to innovative therapies for children, adolescents, and young adults across Canada: The single patient study experience.

Innovative therapeutic approaches are needed to alleviate the burden of life-limiting, rare, and chronic conditions affecting children, adolescents, and young adults (CAYA). This includes a need for improved access to both clinical research and to non-approved or off-label therapies, together with, ultimately, more therapies achieving regulatory approval in Canada. The single patient study (SPS), also known as an open label individual patient (OLIP) study, was introduced by Health Canada to open access to non-marketed drugs where a clinical trial is not readily available, but the drug is considered too investigational to be managed on a standard Special Access Program. SPS is designed for patients who have a serious or life-threatening condition and have exhausted available treatment options. Our report summarizes this relatively new development in the Canadian regulatory environment and highlights the opportunities and challenges as identified by regulators, pharmaceutical representatives, academic researchers, and patient/parent advocates.

To transplant, or not to transplant? That is the question. A patient advocate evaluation of autologous stem cell transplant in neuroblastoma.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been a mainstay of high-risk neuroblastoma treatment for several decades, demonstrating improvements in event-free survival but with risks of serious or even life-threatening acute toxicities, severe long-term adverse health effects for survivors, and ongoing contention regarding overall survival benefit. The merits of ASCT in the modern era of immunotherapy are a source of debate among parents, advocates, and some physicians. Here we examine evidence for and against ASCT, explore parent attitudes and their turmoil over decision-making, and strongly encourage international research consortia to develop a coordinated strategy to accelerate progress toward a future that avoids the routine use of ASCT in high-risk neuroblastoma.

Advancing childhood cancer research through young investigator and advocate collaboration.

Cancer advocates and researchers share the same goal of driving science forward to create new therapies to cure more patients. The power of combining cancer researchers and advocates has become of increased importance due to their complementary expertise. Therefore, advocacy is a critical component of grant structures and has become embedded into the Stand Up 2 Cancer (SU2C) applications. To date, the optimal way to combine these skillsets and experiences to benefit the cancer community is currently unknown. The Saint Baldrick's Foundation (SBF)-SU2C now called St. Baldrick's Empowering Pediatric Immunotherapies for Childhood Cancer (EPICC) Team is comprised of a collaborative network across nine institutions in the United States and Canada. Since SU2C encourages incorporating advocacy into the team structure, we have assembled a diverse team of advocates and scientists by nominating a young investigator (YI) and advocate from each site. In order to further bridge this interaction beyond virtual monthly and yearly in person meetings, we have developed a questionnaire and conducted interviews. The questionnaire is focused on understanding each member's experience at the intersection between science/advocacy, comparing to previous experiences, providing advice on incorporating advocacy into team science and discussing how we can build on our work. Through creating a YI and advocate infrastructure, we have cultivated a supportive environment for meaningful conversation that impacts the entire research team. We see this as a model for team science by combining expertise to drive innovation forward and positively impact pediatric cancer patients, and perhaps those with adult malignancies. Significance: Questionnaire results show both advocates and YI's see this structure to be valuable and beneficial. YI's communicated their research to a non-scientific audience and learned advocate's experience. This was their first advocacy experience for most YIs. Advocates learned more about the research being conducted to provide hope. They can also aid with fundraising, publicity and lobbying. This collaboration improves science communication, designing patient-friendly clinical trials and sharing experience across institutions.