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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Implementation intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: Recommendations from the Synergy Expert Group for research and practice.

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The expert group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Forty-two priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas. Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the expert group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions and recommendations for research on how people use plans.

Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation.

BACKGROUND: The multiplicity of issues, including uncertainty and ethical dilemmas, and policies involved in appraising interventions for rare diseases suggests that multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) based on a holistic definition of value is uniquely suited for this purpose. The objective of this study was to analyze and further develop a comprehensive MCDA framework (EVIDEM) to address rare disease issues and policies, while maintaining its applicability across disease areas. METHODS: Specific issues and policies for rare diseases were identified through literature review. Ethical and methodological foundations of the EVIDEM framework v3.0 were systematically analyzed from the perspective of these issues, and policies and modifications of the framework were performed accordingly to ensure their integration. RESULTS: Analysis showed that the framework integrates ethical dilemmas and issues inherent to appraising interventions for rare diseases but required further integration of specific aspects. Modification thus included the addition of subcriteria to further differentiate disease severity, disease-specific treatment outcomes, and economic consequences of interventions for rare diseases. Scoring scales were further developed to include negative scales for all comparative criteria. A methodology was established to incorporate context-specific population priorities and policies, such as those for rare diseases, into the quantitative part of the framework. This design allows making more explicit trade-offs between competing ethical positions of fairness (prioritization of those who are worst off), the goal of benefiting as many people as possible, the imperative to help, and wise use of knowledge and resources. It also allows addressing variability in institutional policies regarding prioritization of specific disease areas, in addition to existing uncertainty analysis available from EVIDEM. CONCLUSION: The adapted framework measures value in its widest sense, while being responsive to rare disease issues and policies. It provides an operationalizable platform to integrate values, competing ethical dilemmas, and uncertainty in appraising healthcare interventions.

Pragmatic Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Combined With Advanced Pharmacoepidemiology for Benefit-Risk Assessments of Medicines Adapted to the Real-Life Constraints of Regulators: Development and Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) represents a promising method for benefit-risk assessment. Our goal was to develop features of pragmatic MCDA (EVIDEM [Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking]) addressing real-life regulatory decision-making needs, incorporate advanced pharmacoepidemiology, and test the resulting benefit-risk framework using a case study. METHODS: The Intervention Outcomes domain of EVIDEM was transformed into a generic benefit-risk framework including clinical efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse event (AE) criteria. The concept of relative benefit-risk balance (RBRB) was developed for comparability across products and therapeutic areas and over time. Evidence matrix was designed to include most relevant data from trials, observational studies, and models, including Bayesian and longitudinal modeling. The framework was tested with a panel of stakeholders using efalizumab for psoriasis as retrospective case study. Uncertainty was explored. RESULTS: The MCDA benefit-risk tree was adapted with psoriasis-specific subcriteria. Panelists assigned similar weights to benefits (0.48; SD, 0.20-0.70) and risks (0.52; SD, 0.10-0.60), with large variations reflecting diverse perspectives. Panelist scores reflected higher efficacy versus placebo, lower efficacy versus active comparators, and serious and fatal AEs identified postlicensing. Efalizumab's RBRB was positive at licensing in 2004 (0.29, scale -1 to +1) and ranged from -0.41 (vs active comparators) to 0.01 (vs placebo) in 2009, when its market authorization was withdrawn. Retesting indicated good reproducibility. Panelists acknowledged good face validity and the importance of criteria beyond benefit-risk in real-life assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The approach allows quantification and visualization of benefit-risk over time and across comparators. Combination of pragmatic MCDA designed to integrate criteria beyond benefit-risk and advanced statistics supports application of MCDA to further accountable benefit-risk assessments for real-life decision making.

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.

Global availability of data on HPV genotype-distribution in cervical, vulvar and vaginal disease and genotype-specific prevalence and incidence of HPV infection in females.

BACKGROUND: Country-level HPV genotyping data may be sought by decision-makers to gauge the genotype-specific burden of HPV-related diseases in their jurisdiction and assess the potential impact of HPV vaccines. We investigated, by country, the availability of published literature on HPV genotypes in cervical, vaginal and vulvar cancers and intraepithelial neoplasms (CINs, VaINs and VINs) and on prevalence and incidence of genital HPV infections among women without clinically manifest disease. FINDINGS: Primary sources of publications were the PubMed/Medline and EMBASE databases. Original studies or meta-analyses published from 2000, covering genotypes 16 and 18 and at least one of genotypes 31/33/45/52/58, were included. Key exclusion criteria were language not English, cervical lesions not histologically confirmed (cytology only), special populations (e.g., immunocompromised) and, for cervical studies, small population (<50). A total of 727 studies reporting HPV genotype-specific data were identified: 366 for cervical cancers and CINs, 43 for vulvar or vaginal cancers and VINs/VaINs, and 395 and 21 for infection prevalence and incidence, respectively, in general female population samples. A large proportion of studies originated from a small set of countries. Cervical cancer/CIN typing data was scarce for several regions with the highest cervical cancer burden, including Eastern, Middle and Western Africa, Central America, South-East Asia, South Asia, and Eastern Europe. Data for vulvar/vaginal disease was limited outside of Europe and North America. CONCLUSIONS: Although a large body of published HPV genotype-specific data is currently available, data gaps exist for genotype-specific infection incidence and several world regions with the highest cervical cancer burden.

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.

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.

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.

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.