Using multi-criteria decision analysis to appraise orphan drugs: a systematic review

References

• Cleemput I, Franken M, Koopmanschap M, et al. European drug reimbursement systems’ legitimacy: five-country comparison and policy tool. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(4):358–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franken M, Le Polain M, Cleemput I, et al. Similarities and differences between five European drug reimbursement systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(4):349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutton J, McGrath C, Frybourg JM, et al. Framework for describing and classifying decision-making systems using technology assessment to determine the reimbursement of health technologies (fourth hurdle systems). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(1):10–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger LM, International Society for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research. Health care cost, quality, and outcomes: ISPOR book of terms. Lawrenceville: NJ: International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union REGULATION (EC) No 141/2000 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products. Off J Eur Union. 1999;L 18:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Song P, Gao J, Inagaki Y, et al. Rare diseases, orphan drugs, and their regulation in Asia: current status and future perspectives. Intractable Rare Dis Res. 2012;1(1):3–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dharssi S, Wong-Rieger D, Harold M, et al. Review of 11 national policies for rare diseases in the context of key patient needs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Franco P Orphan drugs: the regulatory environment. Drug Discov Today. 2013; 18 (3–4): 163–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EvaluatePharma® Orphan Drug Report 2017. Evaluate Ltd; 2017;4th Edition.
   Google Scholar
• Muhlbacher AC, Kaczynski A Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: the use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iskrov G, Stefanov R Post-marketing access to orphan drugs: a critical analysis of health technology assessment and reimbursement decision-making considerations. Orphan Drugs: Res Rev. 2014;4:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes-Wilson W, Palma A, Schuurman A, et al. Paying for the Orphan Drug System: break or bend? Is it time for a new evaluation system for payers in Europe to take account of new rare disease treatments? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlander M, Garattini S, Holm S, et al. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained? The need for alternative methods to evaluate medical interventions for ultra-rare disorders. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Simoens S Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6: 42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denis A, Mergaert L, Fostier C, et al. Critical assessment of Belgian reimbursement dossiers of orphan drugs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(10):883–893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messori A, Cicchetti A, Patregani L Orphan drugs. Relating price determination to disease prevalence. Bmj. 2010;341:c4615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabarette H, Mayag B L’aide multicritere a la decision (AMD) en sante. Revue de litterature. Cadre du Groupe Sante de la societe français d'evaluation 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Belton V, Steward T Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Dogson J, Spackman M, Pearman A, et al. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Thokala P, Duenas A Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1172–1181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iskrov G, Miteva-Katrandzhieva T, Stefanov R Multi-criteria decision analysis for assessment and appraisal of orphan drugs. Front Public Health. 2016;4:214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanters TA, Hakkaart L, Rutten-Van Molken M, et al. Access to orphan drugs in western Europe: can more systematic policymaking really help to avoid different decisions about the same drug? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):557–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolasa K, Zwolinski KM, Kalo Z, et al. Potential impact of the implementation of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) on the Polish pricing and reimbursement process of orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11:23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schey C, Krabbe PF, Postma MJ, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, et al. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value in Health. 2013;16(8):1163–1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palaska C, Hutchings A Value assessment and pricing frameworks for rare disease treatments: new approaches from the literature. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PRISMA. PRISMA statement. 2017; [cited 10.05.2017] Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, et al. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):345–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaby V, Goeree R How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making–an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simoens S Market access of orphan drugs and the role of multi-criteria decision making. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Conference: 6th European Conference on Rare Diseases and Orphan Products Brussels Belgium Conference Start. 2012; 7(Suppl 2): A26 .
   Google Scholar
• Trip AM, Tsiachristas A, Koenders JM, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis for reimbursing orphan drugs: a Dutch demonstration study using the analytic hierarchy process method. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A541–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schey C, Irwin J, Teneishvili M, et al. Assessing the relationship between individual attributes identified in review of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) of rare diseases and annual treatment costs in rare endocrine disorders. Value in Health. 2014;17 (7):A562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedyaeva VK, Omelyanovsky VV, Rebrova O, et al. MCDA approach to ranking rare diseases in Russia: preliminary results. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, et al. Can the EVIDEM framework tackle issues raised by evaluating treatments for rare diseases: analysis of issues and policies, and context-specific adaptation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(3):285–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, O’Neil B, et al. Can holistic MCDA tackle issues raised by evaluating treatments for rare diseases: an exploration from the HTA perspective. Value in Health. 2016;19 (3):A88–A9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedyaeva VK, Omelyanovskiy VV, Rebrova OY, et al. Comparison of methods to assess the relative importance of criteria in multi-criteria decision analysis: an evaluation of orphan drugs in Russia. Value in Health. 2016;19 (7):A596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner M, Khoury H, Bennetts L, et al. Appraising the holistic value of Lenvatinib for radio-iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: a multi-country study applying pragmatic MCDA. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):272.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gilabert-Perramon A, Torrent-Farnell J, Catalan A, et al. Drug evaluation and decision making in Catalonia: development and validation of a methodological framework based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for orphan drugs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(1):111–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking–the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner M, Khoury H, Willet J, et al. Assessing the value of treatments for rare diseases using an MCDA-based approach: methodological and ethical foundations of criteria selection and framework development. Value in Health. 2014;17 (3):A7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annemans L, Ayme S, Le Cam Y, et al. Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicod E Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18(6):715–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelei T, Molnár MJ, Szegedi M, et al. Systematic review on the evaluation criteria of orphan medicines in Central and Eastern European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaby V, Goeree R, Hoch J, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment in Canada: insights from an expert panel discussion. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(1):13–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Til J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Lieferink M, et al. Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Kanavos P Applying multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment: an empirical case study. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelis A, Tordrup D, Kanavos P Socio-economic burden of rare diseases: a systematic review of cost of illness evidence. Health Policy.119(7):964–979. 2015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):376–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adunlin G, Diaby V, Xiao H Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):1894–1905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas CM, Wilcox E, Burgess M, et al. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement. Health Policy. 2015;119(5):588–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Ijzerman M, Thokala P, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health. 2016;19(2):125–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg-Yunger ZR, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Daar AS, et al. Stakeholder involvement in expensive drug recommendation decisions: an international perspective. Health Policy. 2012; 105 (2–3): 226–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh K, Caro JJ, Hamed A, et al. Amplifying each patient’s voice: a systematic review of multi-criteria decision analyses involving patients. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):155–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar