How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. OBJECTIVE: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. METHODS: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. RESULTS: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of 'patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. CONCLUSION: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area.

Research about patients' preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as 'research partners,' that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners' involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done.

Difficulties encountered by long COVID patients in the Belgian health system / Difficultés rencontrées par les patients COVID long dans le système de santé belge

INTRODUCTION: After contracting COVID-19, many people have continued to experience various symptoms for several weeks and months, even after a mild acute phase. These people with ‘long COVID’ faced difficulties when confronted with the healthcare system. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: In order to better understand their experience, we supplemented the information obtained in an online survey with a mixed qualitative approach based on 33 individual interviews and discussions with 101 participants in a forum in March 2021. RESULTS: Several shortcomings were identified in the contacts of ‘long’ COVID patients with the health care system, such as the lack of listening or empathy of some health care professionals, the lack of a systematic or proactive approach during the diagnostic assessment, or the lack of interdisciplinary coordination. Patients feel misunderstood and are forced to develop their own strategies, whether for diagnosis or treatment. Patients’ discomfort has led them to question the value of medicine and to resort to unconventional therapies to alleviate their symptoms, sometimes at great cost. CONCLUSIONS: Better informing the medical profession about the manifestation of the disease and the possible treatments, including the possibilities of reimbursement, would raise awareness and give them the tools to respond to the needs of ‘ long’ COVID patients. A comprehensive assessment of the patient through an “interdisciplinary assessment” seems necessary.

Introduction: Suite à une infection COVID-19, bon nombre de personnes ont ressenti divers symptômes pendant plusieurs semaines et mois, et ce, même après une phase aiguë légère. Ces personnes atteintes de « COVID long ¼ se sont trouvées confrontées au système de soins de santé, non sans difficultés. But de l'étude: Afin de mieux comprendre leurs expériences, nous avons complété les informations obtenues via une enquête en ligne par une approche qualitative mixte, comprenant 33 entretiens individuels et les discussions de 101 participants à un forum durant le mois de mars 2021. Résultats: Plusieurs lacunes ont été mises en évidence lors des contacts des patients « COVID long ¼ avec le système de santé, comme l'absence d'écoute ou d'empathie de certains professionnels de la santé, d'approche systématique ou proactive lors du bilan diagnostique, ou encore l'absence de coordination interdisciplinaire. Les patients se sentent incompris et se voient obligés de développer leurs propres stratégies afin d'établir un diagnostic ou un traitement. Le malaise des patients les ont amenés à remettre en question la valeur de la médecine et à recourir à des thérapies non conventionnelles afin de soulager leurs symptômes, parfois à un prix élevé. Conclusions: Mieux informer le corps médical quant à la manifestation de la maladie et aux prises en charge possibles, y compris les possibilités de remboursement, permettrait de le sensibiliser et de lui donner les outils pour répondre aux besoins des patients « COVID long ¼. Évaluer de manière globale le patient via un « bilan interdisciplinaire ¼ est nécessaire.

An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish a Belgian EQ-5D-5L value set based on the preferences of the adult Belgian general population. METHODS: The most recent EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT 2.1) protocol for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies was followed. Computer-assisted personal interviews were carried out in a representative sample of the adult Belgian population. Potential respondents were randomly selected from the National Register using a multistage, stratified, cluster sampling with unequal probability design. Each respondent valued 10 or 11 health states using composite time trade-off (cTTO) and 14 health states in seven paired choice tasks using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Different model specifications were explored and assessed based on logical consistency, goodness of fit, predictive accuracy and theoretical considerations. RESULTS: A total of 892 respondents were included in the analyses. The sample was representative of the Belgian adult population in terms of age, sex, region of residence, educational attainment, labour market status, self-assessed health status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The preferred model specification was a hybrid (DCE and cTTO data combined) multiplicative eight-coefficient model with intercept random effects and correction for heteroskedasticity. Values range from - 0.532 to 1. Loss of HRQoL is highest in the dimension pain/discomfort, closely followed by anxiety/depression. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a Belgian EQ-5D-5L value set, based on the preferences of the Belgian adult general population. It provides opportunities for future clinical and economic evaluations in healthcare, for the measurement of patient-reported outcomes and for population health assessments.

Belgian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L, 2018.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life outcomes are increasingly used to monitor population health and health inequalities and to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of health interventions. The EQ-5D-5L has been included in the Belgian Health Interview Survey, providing a new source of population-based self-perceived health status information. This study aims to estimate Belgian population norms for the EQ-5D-5L by sex, age, and region and to analyze its association with educational attainment. METHODS: The BHIS 2018 provided EQ-5D-5L data for a nationally representative sample of the Belgian population. The dimension scores and index values were analyzed using logistic and linear regressions, respectively, accounting for the survey design. RESULTS: More than half of respondents reported problems of pain/discomfort, while over a quarter reported problems of anxiety/depression. The average index value was 0.84. Women reported more problems on all dimensions, but particularly on anxiety/depression and pain/discomfort, resulting in significantly lower index values. Problems with mobility, self-care, and usual activities showed a sharp increase after the age of 80 years. Consequently, index values decreased significantly by age. Lower education was associated with a higher prevalence of problems for all dimensions except anxiety/depression and with a significantly lower index value. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the first nationally representative Belgian population norms using the EQ-5D-5L. Inclusion of the EQ-5D in future surveys will allow monitoring over time of self-reported health, disease burden, and health inequalities.

Developing an agency's position with respect to patient involvement in health technology assessment: the importance of the organizational culture.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to map the PI culture at KCE in the context of the development of organization-wide supported position statements about PI. METHODS: A nominal group technique was used to measure the PI culture at KCE. Arguments for and against PI and conditions for PI in different phases of the HTA process were collected. A literature review and interviews fed the draft position statements, for which support was assessed by means of a two-round Delphi process. RESULTS: Arguments in favor of PI in HTA related to the relevance of the scope, expertise with data collection, bringing in fresh ideas for study design, access to survey participants, validation of data analyses, adherence to recommendations. Disadvantages and risks included the lack of scientific knowledge of involved patients, resources requirements, conflicts of interest, and heterogeneity within patient populations. Conditions for meaningful PI referred to measures mitigating the identified disadvantages. Eighteen position statements supported by KCE could be formulated. CONCLUSION: The KCE culture seems predominantly positive toward PI, although attitudes vary between HTA researchers. KCE recognizes the potential value of PI in HTA, but considers the level of involvement to be contingent on the topic and phase in the HTA process.

An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process?

BACKGROUND: Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients' healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to: 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information. METHODS: A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted. RESULTS: Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future. CONCLUSION: Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders.

An evaluation of managed entry agreements in Belgium: A system with threats and (high) potential if properly applied.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of managed entry agreements (MEAs) in Belgium. METHODS: All Belgian MEAs signed between 2010 and 2015 (n = 71) were studied, including the re-evaluations of 16 reimbursement requests for which the initial MEA had ended. The analysis was supported by the findings from a systematic literature review and structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders. RESULTS: The current application of MEAs provides the short-term advantage of getting a positive reimbursement decision with lower confidential prices. However, it is not clear whether the negotiated prices are in line with the added value of the interventions. Furthermore, the contracts do not provide incentives for manufacturers to gather evidence or to set public prices at an acceptable level. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis of the Belgian MEAs and discussions with Belgian stakeholders, an overview of various issues and pitfalls related to the current application of the system is given. Recommendations are made related to providing correct incentives to deliver good evidence, establishing a correct link between identified uncertainties/problems and the type and content of the MEA, reducing the risk of making the system non-transparent, the importance of international collaboration, etc. in order to optimize the potential of this system. These recommendations are addressed to both the Belgian policymakers and stakeholders in other countries making use of MEAs.

Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study.

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making. Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo. Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA. Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.

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.

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Factors and Situations Affecting the Value of Patient Preference Studies: Semi-Structured Interviews in Europe and the US.

Objectives: Patient preference information (PPI) is gaining recognition among the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies/payers for use in assessments and decision-making along the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to identify factors and situations that influence the value of patient preference studies (PPS) in decision-making along the MPLC according to different stakeholders. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with six different stakeholder groups (physicians, academics, industry representatives, regulators, HTA/payer representatives, and a combined group of patients, caregivers, and patient representatives) from seven European countries (the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Romania, Germany, France, and the Netherlands) and the United States. Framework analysis was performed using NVivo 11 software. Results: Fifteen factors affecting the value of PPS in the MPLC were identified. These are related to: study organization (expertise, financial resources, study duration, ethics and good practices, patient centeredness), study design (examining patient and/or other preferences, ensuring representativeness, matching method to research question, matching method to MPLC stage, validity and reliability, cognitive burden, patient education, attribute development), and study conduct (patients' ability/willingness to participate and preference heterogeneity). Three types of situations affecting the use of PPS results were identified (stakeholder acceptance, market situations, and clinical situations). Conclusion: The factors and situation types affecting the value of PPS, as identified in this study, need to be considered when designing and conducting PPS in order to promote the integration of PPI into decision-making along the MPLC.

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize stakeholders' attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with academics (n = 24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n = 24), industry representatives (n = 24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n = 24), physicians (n = 24), and regulators (n = 23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group. RESULTS: Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders' understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients' understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP.

Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review.

Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases.

A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare.

Early temporary reimbursement (ETR) schemes for new interventions targeting high unmet needs are increasingly applied in pharmaceutical policy. Crucial for these schemes is the assessment of unmet healthcare needs of patients and society. This study develops and tests a multi-criteria decision approach (MCDA) for assessing therapeutic and societal needs. The Belgian unmet needs commission, responsible for creating a list of unmet needs for the ETR programme, has tested this methodology to assess the needs in eight health conditions. For therapeutic need, three criteria were included (impact of the condition on quality of life and on life expectancy and inconvenience of current treatment); for societal need two criteria (condition-related healthcare expenditures per patient, prevalence). The results show that the proposed MCDA is feasible and acceptable for the unmet needs commission. Clear definitions of the criteria and regular repetition of these is needed to avoid variable interpretation of the criteria by the commission members. Quality assessment of the evidence is desired. Rankings resulting from the application have face validity. Considering therapeutic need separately from societal need is considered appropriate. Policy makers should consider the use of MCDA in assessing healthcare needs. MCDA improves the transparency and accountability of the decision making processes and is practical and feasible.

What Does the Public Want? Structural Consideration of Citizen Preferences in Health Care Coverage Decisions.

Background. Multi-criteria decision analysis can improve the legitimacy of health care reimbursement decisions by taking societal preferences into account when weighting decision criteria. This study measures the relative importance of health care coverage criteria according to the Belgian general public and policy makers. Criteria are structured into three domains: therapeutic need, societal need, and new treatments' added value. Methods. A sample of 4,288 citizens and 161 policy makers performed a discrete choice experiment. Data were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Level-independent criteria weights were determined using the log-likelihood method. Results. Both the general public and policy makers gave the highest weight to quality of life in the appraisal of therapeutic need (0.43 and 0.53, respectively). The general public judged life expectancy (0.14) as less important than inconvenience of current treatment (0.43), unlike decision makers (0.32 and 0.15). The general public gave more weight to "impact of a disease on public expenditures" (0.65) than to "prevalence of the disease" (0.56) when appraising societal need, whereas decision makers' weights were 0.44 and 0.56, respectively. When appraising added value, the general public gave similar weights to "impact on quality of life" and "impact on prevalence" (0.37 and 0.36), whereas decision makers judged "impact on quality of life" (0.39) more important than "impact on prevalence" (0.29). Both gave the lowest weight to impact on life expectancy (0.14 and 0.21). Limitations. Comparisons between the general public and policy makers should be treated with caution because the policy makers' sample size was small. Conclusion. Societal preferences can be measured and used as decision criteria weights in multi-criteria decision analysis. This cannot replace deliberation but can improve the transparency of health care coverage decision processes.

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.