RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although different treatment protocols for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) all achieve high cure rates, their health care utilisation and costs have not been rigorously compared. METHODS: Disease, treatment, and outcome data were chart abstracted for all children with ALL in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed 2002-2012. Linkage to population-based databases identified health care utilisation. Utilisation-associated costs were determined through validated algorithms. Chemotherapy-associated costs were calculated separately. Health care utilisation and costs were compared between patients receiving Children's Oncology Group (COG) versus Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI)-based treatment. FINDINGS: Of 802 patients, 146 (18.2%) were treated on DFCI-based protocols. COG patients experienced significantly higher rates of emergency department (ED) visits (adjusted rate ratio [aRR]: 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.5; p = 0·01), whereas outpatient visit rates were 60% higher among DFCI patients (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.5-1.7, p < 0.0001). In adjusted analyses, DFCI-associated cost intensity was 70% higher (aRR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.5-1.9; p < 0.0001), mainly attributable to outpatient visit costs. Total chemotherapy costs were higher among COG-treated patients ($39,400 ± $1100 versus $33,400 ± $2800; p = 0.02). Among PEG-ASNase-treated patients, total chemotherapy costs were highest among DFCI patients (median $54,200 ± $7400; p = 0.003 versus COG patients). INTERPRETATION: COG and DFCI treatments were associated with higher ED visit rates and higher outpatient visit rates, respectively. Overall utilisation-associated costs were increased in DFCI-treated patients. Administration of some intravenous chemotherapy at home and decreases in PEG-ASNase cost would decrease health care utilisation and costs for all patients and mitigate differences between COG and DFCI protocols. FUNDING: C17 Research Network.
