Identifying value arguments and deployment avenues of primary care innovations using a deliberative multidimensional approach.

Context: The increasing pressure on primary care services calls for efficient approaches to assess the potential value of innovations and identify facilitators to their deployment in local contexts. Objective: To explore the value arguments of innovations in primary care identified as promising during Quebec College of Family Physicians' Symposia on Innovations and to propose avenues for their improvement and deployment. Methods: Ten innovations were selected using their ranking at the Symposia and pre-established criteria to ensure diversity. An evidence-informed multidimensional deliberative approach (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociocultural dimensions) was applied by a panel of 12 clinicians, managers, patients and citizens. Using data synthesized by dimension, each participant identified arguments on the value of each innovation and appraised them on a numerical scale. The arguments were discussed by the group, and a qualitative analysis with inter-rater validation of the deliberation was performed and the mean appraisal scores at the group level were calculated. These qualitative and quantitative data were synthesized and used as a basis for a second discussion with the group during which avenues for deployment were organized by thematic analysis. Results: Innovations fell into three categories: support for clinical processes (n=5), adaptation of the organization of care to vulnerable populations (n=3), and support for quality improvement (n=2). Innovations aiming at adapting the organization of care for vulnerable populations were considered of highest value overall. Quality improvement innovations received mixed appraisals and needed to be further developed in terms of their value proposition and organizational fit. Innovations to support clinical processes also received mixed appraisals; proposals for further development included keeping them up to date and integrating them with information systems. Conclusions: This study highlights the factors that influence the value of certain categories of primary care innovations as well as avenues for their improvement and implementation that can guide innovators. This work demonstrates that exploring complex innovations with a multidimensional deliberative approach including patients and citizens is useful to identify their value arguments from a comprehensive standpoint, which is essential to identify the best implementation avenues to optimize the creation of value in real life.

Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Health Technology Assessment Agencies: Benefits, Limitations, and the Way Forward.

OBJECTIVE: Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being "entirely mechanistic," ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context. METHODS: The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 36 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds. RESULTS: We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved.

Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: A multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to reveal through pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM) the contribution of a broad range of criteria to the value of the orphan drug lenvatinib for radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) in country-specific contexts. METHODS: The study was designed to enable comprehensive appraisal (12 quantitative, 7 qualitative criteria) in the current disease context (watchful waiting, sorafenib) of France, Italy and Spain. Data on the value of lenvatinib was collected from diverse stakeholders during country-specific panels and included: criteria weights (individual and social values); performance scores (judgments on evidence-collected through MCDA systematic review); qualitative impacts of contextual criteria; and verbal and written insights structured by criteria. The value contribution of each criterion was calculated and uncertainty explored. RESULTS: Comparative effectiveness, Quality of evidence (Spain and Italy) and Disease severity (France) received the greatest weights. Four criteria contributed most to the value of lenvatinib, reflecting its superior Comparative effectiveness (16-22% of value), the severity of RR-DTC (16-22%), significant unmet needs (14-21%) and robust evidence (14-20%). Contributions varied by comparator, country and individuals, highlighting the importance of context and consultation. Results were reproducible at the group level. Impacts of contextual criteria varied across countries reflecting different health systems and cultural backgrounds. The MCDA process promoted sharing stakeholders' knowledge on lenvatinib and insights on context. CONCLUSIONS: The value of lenvatinib was consistently positive across diverse therapeutic contexts. MCDA identified the aspects contributing most to value, revealed rich contextual insights, and helped participants express and explicitly tackle ethical trade-offs inherent to balanced appraisal and decisionmaking.

EXPLORING VALUES OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AGENCIES USING REFLECTIVE MULTICRITERIA AND RARE DISEASE CASE.

OBJECTIVES: Tackling ethical dilemmas faced by reimbursement decision makers requires deeper understanding of values on which health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are founded and how trade-offs are made. This was explored in this study including the case of rare disease. METHODS: Representatives from eight HTA explored values on which institutions are founded using a narrative approach and reflective multicriteria (developed from EVIDEM, criteria derived from ethical imperatives of health care). Trade-offs between criteria and the impact of incorporating defined priorities (including for rare diseases) were explored through a quantitative values elicitation exercise. RESULTS: Participants reported a diversity of substantive and procedural values with a common emphasis on scientific excellence, stakeholder involvement, independence, and transparency. Examining the ethical imperatives behind EVIDEM criteria was found to be useful to further explore substantive values. Most criteria were deemed to reflect institutions' values, while 70 percent of the criteria were reported by at least half of participants to be considered formally by their institutions. The quantitative values elicitation highlighted the difficulty to balance imperatives of "alleviating or preventing patient suffering," "serving the whole population equitably," "upholding healthcare system sustainability," and "making decisions informed by evidence and context" but may help share the ethical reasoning behind decisions. Incorporating "Priorities" (including for rare diseases) helped reveal trade-offs from other criteria and their underlying ethical imperatives. CONCLUSIONS: Reflective multicriteria are useful to explore substantive values of HTAs, reflect how these values and their ethical underpinnings can be operationalized into criteria, and explore the ethical reasoning at the heart of the healthcare debate.

Associations of Anogenital Low-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection With Cancer and Acquisition of HIV.

α-Mucosal human papillomavirus (HPV) types are implicated in a range of clinical conditions and categorized as "low-risk" (LR) and "high-risk" (HR) types according to their degree of association with cervical cancers. The causative role of LR HPV infection in the development of anogenital warts and in low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions is well established. In addition, there is a growing body of evidence that infection with LR HPV types may be associated with an elevated risk of cancers and potentiation of coinfections. Prospective and case-control studies consistently report a higher risk of anogenital cancers in men and women with a history of anogenital warts. Based on currently available evidence, this higher risk may be due to shared exposure to HR HPV types or an underlying immune impairment, rather than a direct role of LR HPV types in subsequent cancer risk. Data also suggest that infection with LR HPV, HR HPV, or both may increase the risk of HIV acquisition, although the relative contribution of different HPV types is not yet known. There is also evidence implicating HPV clearance, rather than HPV infection, in increased risk of HIV acquisition.

Clinical and economic consequences of vancomycin and fidaxomicin for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) represents a public health problem with increasing incidence and severity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of vancomycin compared with fidaxomicin in the treatment of CDI from the Canadian health care system perspective. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed to compare vancomycin and fidaxomicin for the treatment of severe CDI. The model assumed identical initial cure rates and included first recurrent episodes of CDI (base case). Treatment of patients presenting with recurrent CDI was examined as an alternative analysis. Costs included were for study medication, physician services and hospitalization. Cost effectiveness was measured as incremental cost per recurrence avoided. Sensitivity analyses of key input parameters were performed. RESULTS: In a cohort of 1000 patients with an initial episode of severe CDI, treatment with fidaxomicin led to 137 fewer recurrences at an incremental cost of $1.81 million, resulting in an incremental cost of $13,202 per recurrence avoided. Among 1000 patients with recurrent CDI, 113 second recurrences were avoided at an incremental cost of $18,190 per second recurrence avoided. Incremental costs per recurrence avoided increased with increasing proportion of cases caused by the NAP1/B1/027 strain. Results were sensitive to variations in recurrence rates and treatment duration but were robust to variations in other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fidaxomicin is associated with a cost increase for the Canadian health care system. Clinical benefits of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin depend on the proportion of cases caused by the NAP1/B1/027 strain in patients with severe CDI.

HISTORIQUE: L'infection à Clostridium difficile (ICD) est un problème de santé publique à l'incidence et à la gravité croissantes. OBJECTIF: Évaluer les conséquences cliniques et économiques de la vancomycine par rapport à la fidaxomicine pour traiter l'ICD dans le système de santé canadien. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les chercheurs ont élaboré un modèle d'arbre décisionnel pour comparer la vancomycine et la fidaxomicine dans le traitement des graves ICD. Selon ce modèle, le taux de guérison initial était identique et incluait les premiers épisodes récurrents d'ICD (cas de référence). L'autre méthode d'analyse examinée était le traitement des patients atteints d'ICD. Les coûts inclus étaient ceux du médicament à l'étude, des services des médecins et de l'hospitalisation. Les chercheurs ont mesuré l'efficacité des coûts sous forme de coût incrémentiel par récurrence évitée. Ils ont effectué les analyses de sensibilité des principaux paramètres d'entrée. RÉSULTATS: Dans une cohorte de 1 000 patients ayant eu un épisode initial de grave ICD, le traitement à la fidaxomicine suscitait 137 récurrences de moins à un coût incrémentiel de 1,81 million de dollars, pour un coût incrémentiel de 13 202 $ par récurrence évitée. Chez 1 000 patients ayant eu une ICD récurrente, 113 deuxièmes récurrences ont été évitées, à un coût incrémentiel de 18 190 $ par deuxième récurrence évitée. Les coûts incrémentiels par récurrence évitée grimpaient proportionnellement à l'augmentation de la proportion des cas causés par la souche NAP1/B1/027. Les résultats étaient sensibles aux variations des taux de récurrence et de la durée de traitement, mais robustes aux variations des autres paramètres. CONCLUSIONS: L'utilisation de fidaxomicine s'associe à une augmentation des coûts dans le système de santé canadien. Les avantages cliniques de la fidaxomicine par rapport à la vancomycine dépendent de la proportion de cas causés par la souche NAP1/B1/027 chez les patients atteints d'une grave ICD.

Systematic review of the incidence and prevalence of genital warts.

BACKGROUND: Anogenital warts (AGWs) are a common, highly infectious disease caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), whose high recurrence rates contribute to direct medical costs, productivity loss and increased psychosocial impact. Because of the lack of a systematic review of the epidemiology of AGWs in the literature, this study reviewed the published medical literature on the incidence and prevalence of AGWs. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed on the worldwide incidence and prevalence of AGWs between 2001 and 2012 using the PubMed and EMBASE databases. An additional screening of abstracts from relevant sexual health and infectious disease conferences from 2009 to 2011 was also conducted. Only original studies with general adult populations (i.e., at least including ages 20 through 40 years) were included. RESULTS: The overall (females and males combined) reported annual incidence of any AGWs (including new and recurrent) ranged from 160 to 289 per 100,000, with a median of 194.5 per 100,000. New AGW incidence rates among males ranged from 103 to 168 per 100,000, with a median of 137 per 100,000 and among females from 76 to 191 per 100,000, with a median of 120.5 per 100,000 per annum. The reported incidence of recurrent AGWs was as high as 110 per 100,000 among females and 163 per 100,000 among males. Incidence peaked before 24 years of age in females and between 25 and 29 years of age among males. The overall prevalence of AGWs based on retrospective administrative databases or medical chart reviews or prospectively collected physician reports ranged from 0.13% to 0.56%, whereas it ranged from 0.2% to 5.1% based on genital examinations. CONCLUSIONS: The literature suggests that AGWs are widespread and the prevalence depends on study methodology as suggested by higher rates reported from routine genital examinations versus those from treatment records. However, there remains a need for more population-based studies from certain regions including Africa, Latin America and Southern Asia to further elucidate the global epidemiology of this disease.

Which criteria are considered in healthcare decisions? Insights from an international survey of policy and clinical decision makers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gather qualitative and quantitative data on criteria considered by healthcare decision makers. METHODS: Using snowball sampling and an online questionnaire with forty-three criteria organized into ten clusters, decision makers were invited by an international task force to report which criteria they consider when making decisions on healthcare interventions in their context. Respondents reported whether each criterion is "currently considered," "should be considered," and its relative weight (scale 0-5). Differences in proportions of respondents were explored with inferential statistics across levels of decision (micro, meso, macro), decision maker perspectives, and world regions. RESULTS: A total of 140 decision makers (1/3 clinical, 2/3 policy) from 23 countries in five continents completed the survey. The most relevant criteria (top ranked for "Currently considered," "Should be considered," and weights) were Clinical efficacy/effectiveness, Safety, Quality of evidence, Disease severity, and Impact on healthcare costs. Organizational and skill requirements were frequently considered but had relatively low weights. For almost all criteria, a higher proportion of decision makers reported that they "Should be considered" than that they are "Currently considered" (p < .05). For more than 74 percent of criteria, there were no statistical differences in proportions across levels of decision, perspectives and world regions. Statistically significant differences across several comparisons were found for: Population priorities, Stakeholder pressure/interests, Capacity to stimulate research, Impact on partnership and collaboration, and Environmental impact. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest convergence among decision makers on the relevance of a core set of criteria and on the need to consider a wider range of criteria. Areas of divergence appear to be principally related to contextual factors.

HTA challenges for appraising rare disease interventions viewed through the lens of an institutional multidimensional value framework.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating rare disease interventions poses challenges for HTA agencies, including uncertainties and ethical issues and tensions. INESSS has recently adopted a Statement of Principles and Ethical Foundations which proposes a multidimensional approach to value appraisal as well as five principles to frame the evaluation process. AREAS COVERED: Our aim was to identify and analyze HTA challenges for appraising interventions for rare diseases, using the Statement's approach to value appraisal as an analytical framework, and outline how the Statement's principles can help address these challenges. Challenges, covering a diversity of aspects, were identified by leveraging institutional experience in diverse domains of expertise and consolidated through narrative literature review. Challenges were categorized by value dimension (clinical, populational, economic, organizational, and sociocultural), which allowed to pinpoint how each challenge affects the ability to appraise the value of an intervention. Key ethical tensions across dimensions were also identified. Specific approaches to addressing these challenges - related to knowledge mobilization and integration, deliberation, and recommendation-making - were outlined on the basis of the principles promulgated in the Statement. EXPERT OPINION: A multidimensional approach can be fruitful for analyzing challenges for appraising the value of rare disease interventions and help guide approaches to tackle them.

Field testing of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: The EVIDEM framework was easily adapted to evaluating a screening technology in South Africa, thereby broadening its applicability in healthcare decision making.

From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking.

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 and their frequency 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 multicriteria 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, 40 studies included. 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 360 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 (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (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.

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.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Macroclimatic conditions as main drivers for symbiotic association patterns in lecideoid lichens along the Transantarctic Mountains, Ross Sea region, Antarctica.

Lecideoid lichens as dominant vegetation-forming organisms in the climatically harsh areas of the southern part of continental Antarctica show clear preferences in relation to environmental conditions (i.e. macroclimate). 306 lichen samples were included in the study, collected along the Ross Sea coast (78°S-85.5°S) at six climatically different sites. The species compositions as well as the associations of their two dominant symbiotic partners (myco- and photobiont) were set in context with environmental conditions along the latitudinal gradient. Diversity values were nonlinear with respect to latitude, with the highest alpha diversity in the milder areas of the McMurdo Dry Valleys (78°S) and the most southern areas (Durham Point, 85.5°S; Garden Spur, 84.5°S), and lowest in the especially arid and cold Darwin Area (~ 79.8°S). Furthermore, the specificity of mycobiont species towards their photobionts decreased under more severe climate conditions. The generalist lichen species Lecanora fuscobrunnea and Lecidea cancriformis were present in almost all habitats, but were dominant in climatically extreme areas. Carbonea vorticosa, Lecidella greenii and Rhizoplaca macleanii were confined to milder areas. In summary, the macroclimate is considered to be the main driver of species distribution, making certain species useful as bioindicators of climate conditions and, consequently, for assessing the consequences of climate change.

Combining multicriteria decision analysis, ethics and health technology assessment: applying the EVIDEM decision-making framework to growth hormone for Turner syndrome patients.

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness - A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decision-making towards legitimacy. Rare disease and regenerative therapies (RDRTs) pose special decision-making challenges and offer therefore a useful case study. METHODS: Features operationalizing each A4R condition as well as three different approaches to address these features (cost-per-QALY-focused and multicriteria-based) were defined and organized into a matrix. Seven experts explored these features during a panel run under the Chatham House Rule and provided general and RDRT-specific recommendations. Responses were analyzed to identify converging and diverging recommendations. RESULTS: Regarding Relevance, recommendations included supporting deliberation, stakeholder participation and grounding coverage decision criteria in normative and societal objectives. Thirteen of 17 proposed decision criteria were recommended by a majority of panelists. The usefulness of universal cost-effectiveness thresholds to inform allocative efficiency was challenged, particularly in the RDRT context. RDRTs raise specific issues that need to be considered; however, rarity should be viewed in relation to other aspects, such as disease severity and budget impact. Regarding Publicity, panelists recommended transparency about the values underlying a decision and value judgements used in selecting evidence. For Appeals, recommendations included a life-cycle approach with clear provisions for re-evaluations. For Enforcement, external quality reviews of decisions were recommended. CONCLUSION: Moving coverage decision-making processes towards enhanced legitimacy in general and in the RDRT context involves designing and refining approaches to support participation and deliberation, enhancing transparency, and allowing explicit consideration of multiple decision criteria that reflect normative and societal objectives.

Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare decisionmaking is a complex process relying on disparate types of evidence and value judgments. Our objectives for this study were to develop a practical framework to facilitate decisionmaking in terms of supporting the deliberative process, providing access to evidence, and enhancing the communication of decisions. METHODS: Extensive analyses of the literature and of documented decisionmaking processes around the globe were performed to explore what steps are currently used to make decisions with respect to context (from evidence generation to communication of decision) and thought process (conceptual components of decisions). Needs and methodologies available to support decisionmaking were identified to lay the groundwork for the EVIDEM framework. RESULTS: A framework was developed consisting of seven modules that can evolve over the life cycle of a healthcare intervention. Components of decision that could be quantified, i.e., intrinsic value of a healthcare intervention and quality of evidence available, were organized into matrices. A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Value Matrix (VM) was developed to include the 15 quantifiable components that are currently considered in decisionmaking. A methodology to synthesize the evidence needed for each component of the VM was developed including electronic access to full text source documents. A Quality Matrix was designed to quantify three criteria of quality for the 12 types of evidence usually required by decisionmakers. An integrated system was developed to optimize data analysis, synthesis and validation by experts, compatible with a collaborative structure. CONCLUSION: The EVIDEM framework promotes transparent and efficient healthcare decisionmaking through systematic assessment and dissemination of the evidence and values on which decisions are based. It provides a collaborative framework that could connect all stakeholders and serve the healthcare community at local, national and international levels by allowing sharing of data, resources and values. Validation and further development is needed to explore the full potential of this approach.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Unresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options. METHODS: The EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB, scale - 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed. RESULTS: Focusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study. CONCLUSION: The multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts. FUNDING: IPSEN Pharma.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making. METHODS: The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing. RESULTS: The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives. FUNDING: Ipsen Pharma.

Human Papillomavirus Genotypes From Vaginal and Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Females 15-26 Years of Age.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of vulvar and vaginal low-grade and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs and HSILs) in females 15-26 years of age attributable to 14 human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59). METHODS: A post hoc analysis of prospectively diagnosed vulvar and vaginal LSILs and HSILs among females 15-26 years of age enrolled in the placebo arms of two phase 3, randomized HPV vaccine trials assessed 14 prespecified HPV genotypes associated with cervical cancers or anogenital warts using a type-specific multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay. The frequency of lesions associated with specific HPV genotypes was estimated by proportional and other attribution methods. RESULTS: During approximately 4 years of follow-up in 8,798 females, 40 vulvar LSILs and 46 vulvar HSILs were diagnosed in 68 females, and 118 vaginal LSILs and 33 vaginal HSILs were diagnosed in 107 females. Females developing vulvar (41.2%) or vaginal (49.5%) lesions also had cervical lesions, whereas 6.5% of females with cervical lesions had vaginal or vulvar lesions. At least 1 of the 14 HPV genotypes was detected in females with vulvar LSIL (72.5%), vulvar HSIL (91.3%), vaginal LSIL (61.9%), and vaginal HSIL (72.7%). Considering only HPV-positive lesions, the nine most common genotypes causing cervical cancer and anogenital warts (6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58) were found in 89.4% of vulvar LSILs, 100% of vulvar HSILs, 56.0% of vaginal LSILs, and 78.3% of vaginal HSILs. CONCLUSION: Most vulvar and vaginal lesions were attributable to at least 1 of the 14 HPV genotypes analyzed. Effective immunization programs could potentially prevent substantial numbers of HPV-related vulvar and vaginal LSILs and HSILs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICALTRIALS.GOV,: NCT00092521 and NCT00092534.

Dopamine D2/D3 receptor stimulation fails to promote dopaminergic neurogenesis of murine and human midbrain-derived neural precursor cells in vitro.

The potential application of neural precursor cells (NPCs) in brain repair of neurodegenerative diseases has placed the factors capable of stimulating neurogenesis under increasing attention. Among these factors are dopamine (DA) D2/D3 receptor agonists, like 7-hydroxy-dipropylaminotetralin (7-OH-DPAT). The purpose of this investigation was to explore proliferating and neurostimulating effects of this drug in murine and human NPCs derived from the fetal midbrain. In both cell types, dopamine D2 and D3 receptors were detected by microarray data analysis and quantitative RT-PCR. Despite D2/D3 receptors expression, treatment with 7-OH-DPAT did not affect proliferation, survival, or neurogenesis of murine and human NPCs. Our data question the relevance of neuroregenerative effects of dopamine agonists for human predopaminergic cells as well as patients with Parkinson's disease.