Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In health technology assessment, the evidence obtained from clinical trials regarding multiple clinical outcomes is used to support reimbursement claims. At present, the relevance of these outcome measures for patients is, however, not systematically assessed, and judgments on their relevance may differ among patients and healthcare professionals. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a technique for multi-criteria decision analysis that can be used for preference elicitation. In the present study, we explored the value of using the AHP to prioritize the relevance of outcome measures for major depression by patients, psychiatrists and psychotherapists, and to elicit preferences for alternative healthcare interventions regarding this weighted set of outcome measures. METHODS: Supported by the pairwise comparison technique of the AHP, a patient group and an expert group of psychiatrists and psychotherapists discussed and estimated the priorities of the clinical outcome measures of antidepressant treatment. These outcome measures included remission of depression, response to drug treatment, no relapse, (serious) adverse events, social function, no anxiety, no pain, and cognitive function. Clinical evidence on the outcomes of three antidepressants regarding these outcome measures was derived from a previous benefit assessment by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG; Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen). RESULTS: The most important outcome measures according to the patients were, in order of decreasing importance: response to drug treatment, cognitive function, social function, no anxiety, remission, and no relapse. The patients and the experts showed some remarkable differences regarding the relative importance of response (weight patients = 0.37; weight experts = 0.05) and remission (weight patients = 0.09; weight experts = 0.40); however, both experts and patients agreed upon the list of the six most important measures, with experts only adding one additional outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: The AHP can easily be used to elicit patient preferences and the study has demonstrated differences between patients and experts. The AHP is useful for policy makers in combining multiple clinical outcomes of healthcare interventions grounded in randomized controlled trials in an overall health economic evaluation. This may be particularly relevant in cases where different outcome measures lead to conflicting results about the best alternative to reimburse. Alternatively, AHP may also support researchers in selecting (primary) outcome measures with the highest relevance.

Review on early technology assessments of nanotechnologies in oncology.

Nanotechnology is expected to play an increasingly important role in the diagnostics, prognostics, and management of targeted cancer treatments. While papers have described promising results for nanotechnology in experimental settings, the translation of fundamental research into clinical applications has yet to be widely adopted. In future, policy makers will need to anticipate new developments for clinical implementation and introduce technology assessments. Here we present an overview of the literature on the technology assessments that have already been undertaken on early stage nanotechnology in cancer care, with particular emphasis placed on clinical efficacy, efficiency, logistics, patient-related features and technology dynamics. Owing to the current stage of development of most nanotechnologies, we found only a limited number of publications describing the application of either Health Technology Assessment (HTA) or Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA). In spite of the promising conclusions of most papers concerning the benefits of clinical implementation, actual clinically relevant applications were rarely encountered, and so far only a few publications report application of systematic forms of technology assessment. Most articles consider aspects of environmental safety, regulation and ethics, often mentioning the need to investigate such issues more thoroughly. Evaluation of financial and organizational aspects is often missing. In order to obtain a realistic perspective on the translation and implementation process there is a need for a broad and systematic evaluation of nanotechnologies at early stages of development. Assessment methods taking technology dynamics into account, such as Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) should be considered for evaluation purposes.

Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as a tool in coverage with evidence development: the case of the 70-gene prognosis signature for breast cancer diagnostics.

OBJECTIVES: Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is a means to guide early implementation of new developments in society, and can be used as an evaluation tool for Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). We used CTA for the introduction of a new diagnostic test in the Netherlands, the 70-gene prognosis signature (MammaPrint) for node-negative breast cancer patients. METHODS: Studied aspects were (organizational) efficiency, patient-centeredness and diffusion scenarios. Pre-post structured surveys were conducted in fifteen community hospitals concerning changes in logistics and teamwork as a consequence of the introduction of the 70-gene signature. Patient-centeredness was measured by questionnaires and interviews regarding knowledge and psychological impact of the test. Diffusion scenarios, which are commonly applied in industry to anticipate on future development and diffusion of their products, have been applied in this study. RESULTS: Median implementation-time of the 70-gene signature was 1.2 months. Most changes were seen in pathology processes and adjuvant treatment decisions. Physicians valued the addition of the 70-gene signature information as beneficial for patient management. Patient-centeredness (n = 77, response 78 percent): patients receiving a concordant high-risk and discordant clinical low/high risk-signature showed significantly more negative emotions with respect to receiving both test-results compared with concordant low-risk and discordant clinical high/low risk-signature patients. The first scenario was written in 2004 before the introduction of the 70-gene signature and identified hypothetical developments that could influence diffusion; especially the "what-if" deviation describing a discussion on validity among physicians proved to be realistic. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in speed of implementation and influenced treatment decisions were seen. Impact on patients seems especially related to discordance and its successive communication. In the future, scenario drafting will lead to input for model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, CTA can be useful as a tool to guide CED by adding monitoring and anticipation on possible developments during early implementation, to the assessment of promising new technologies.

Early phase Technology Assessment of nanotechnology in oncology.

To perform early Technology Assessment (TA) of nanotechnology in oncology. The possibilities of nanotechnology for detection (imaging), diagnosis and treatment of cancer are subject of different research programs where major investments are concerned. As a range of bio- nanotechnologies is expected to enter the oncology field it is relevant to consider the various aspects involved in especially early TA. This article provides two cases of early assessment of (predecessors of) nanotechnologies: Microarray Analysis and Photodynamic Therapy implementation, which methodology can be extrapolated to other nanotechnologies in oncology. Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) is used for the introduction of technologies that are still in a dynamic phase of development or in an early stage of diffusion. The selection of studied aspects in CTA is based on: clinical aspects (safety, efficacy, and effectiveness), economic (cost-effectiveness), patient related (QoL, ethical/juridical and psychosocial), organizational aspects (diffusion and adoption) and scenario drafting. The features of the technology and the phase of implementation are decisive for choices and timing of the specific aspects to be studied. A framework was drafted to decide on the relevant aspects. In the first case, early implementation of Microarray Analysis; clinical effectiveness, logistics, patient centeredness and scenario drafting were given priority. Related to the diffusion-phase of Photodynamic Therapy however other aspects were evaluated, such as early cost-effectiveness analysis for possible reimbursement. Often CTA will result in a mixed method design. Especially scenario drafting is a powerful instrument to predict possible developments that can be anticipated upon in the assessment. CTA is appropriate for the study of early implementation of new technologies in oncology. In early TA small series often necessitate a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. The features of nanotechnology involved are decisive for the selection of CTA aspects, most likely: safety -especially possible interactions with other technologies-, ethics, cost-effectiveness and patient centeredness.

Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care.

OBJECTIVES: Technologies in health care are evolving quickly, with new findings in the area of biotechnological and genetic research being published regularly. A health technology assessment (HTA) is often used to answer the question of whether the new technology should be implemented into clinical practice. International evidence confirms that the results of HTA research sometimes have limited impact on practical implementation and on coverage decisions; the study design is commonly based on the paradigm of stability of both the technology and the environment, which is often not the case. Constructive technology assessment (CTA) was first described in the 1980s. In addition to the traditional HTA elements, this approach also takes into account the technology dynamics by emphasizing sociodynamic processes. With a CTA approach, comprehensive assessment can be combined with an intentional influence in a favorable direction to improve quality. METHODS: In this study, the methodological aspects mainly concerning the diagnostic use of CTA are explained. The methodology will be illustrated using the controlled introduction of a new technology, called microarray analysis, into the clinical practice of breast cancer treatment as a case study. Attention is paid to the operationalization of the phases of development and implementation and the research methods most appropriate for CTA. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to HTA, CTA can be used as a complementary approach, especially in technologies that are introduced in an early stage of development in a controlled way.