martes, 11 de diciembre de 2018

Determining the value contribution of selexipag for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in Spain using reflective multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) | Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Full Text

Determining the value contribution of selexipag for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in Spain using reflective multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) | Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases | Full Text

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Determining the value contribution of selexipag for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in Spain using reflective multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases201813:220
  • Received: 2 August 2018
  •  
  • Accepted: 28 November 2018
  •  
  • Published: 

Abstract

Background

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) is a chronic rare disease that can lead to serious cardiovascular problems and death. Additional treatments that increase effectiveness, that are safe and with a convenient administration that improve outcomes and quality of life for patients are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the value contribution of the new, oral prostacyclin receptor agonist, selexipag, for PAH treatment in Spain through reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to develop an evidence matrix, composed of twelve quantitative criteria and four contextual criteria, based on an EVIDEM MCDA framework adapted to orphan drugs evaluation by the Spanish region of Catalonia. Quantitative performance scores, qualitative impact of contextual criteria and individual reflections from stakeholders were collected for each MCDA framework criteria. The value contribution of selexipag to PAH treatment compared to inhaled iloprost was calculated.

Results

Oral selexipag for PAH treatment was considered as a treatment which adds value, compared to iloprost, in the following MCDA quantitative criteria: comparative efficacy, patient reported outcomes, preventive benefit, therapeutic benefit, other medical costs and other non-medical costs, without significant differences in safety profile but with a higher acquisition cost than inhaled iloprost.

Conclusions

Selexipag was considered to provide value to PAH treatment. It was perceived as an intervention indicated for a severe rare disease with high unmet needs, supported by high quality clinical evidence. When compared to inhaled iloprost, oral selexipag has demonstrated improvements in efficacy and patient reported outcomes, with a similar safety profile and some additional costs.
Reflective MCDA provided a standardised, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria relating to the overall value contribution of selexipag to PAH treatment facilitating decision-making.

Keywords

  • Multi-criteria decision analysis
  • MCDA
  • Rare disease
  • Pulmonary arterial hypertension
  • Selexipag
  • Iloprost

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario