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

ABSTRACT

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.