Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs
- PMID: 28237195
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.011
Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs
Abstract
Background: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Objectives: To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology.
Methods: In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
Results: Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores.
Conclusions: The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.
Keywords: convergent validity; inter-rater reliability; oncology; value frameworks.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Jun;23(6-a Suppl):S34-S48. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.6-a.s34. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017. PMID: 28535104 Free PMC article.
-
Do the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Measure the Same Construct of Clinical Benefit?J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 20;35(24):2764-2771. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6894. Epub 2017 Jun 2. J Clin Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28574778
-
Verifying the value of existing frameworks for formulary review at a large academic health system: assessing inter-rater reliability.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Apr;27(4):488-496. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.4.488. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021. PMID: 33769852 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical benefit of systemic treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours according to ESMO-MCBS and ASCO framework.Ann Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;28(12):3022-3027. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx547. Ann Oncol. 2017. PMID: 29045525 Review.
-
Value-based medicine in oncology: the importance of perspective in the emerging value frameworks.Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018 Dec 10;73(suppl 1):e470s. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2018/e470s. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2018. PMID: 30540119 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
This is a call to oncologists for action.Clin Transl Oncol. 2018 Dec;20(12):1493-1501. doi: 10.1007/s12094-018-1887-3. Epub 2018 May 23. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018. PMID: 29796999 Review.
-
Chinesisation, adaptation and validation of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool in critically ill patients: a cross-sectional observational study.BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 9;11(4):e045550. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045550. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 33837104 Free PMC article.
-
Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission.Lancet Oncol. 2017 Nov;18(11):e653-e706. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30698-8. Epub 2017 Oct 31. Lancet Oncol. 2017. PMID: 29208398 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Incorporating health equity into value assessment: frameworks, promising alternatives, and future directions.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Sep;27(9-a Suppl):S22-S29. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.9-a.s22. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021. PMID: 34579542 Free PMC article.
-
Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets.Front Public Health. 2018 Dec 5;6:328. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00328. eCollection 2018. Front Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30568938 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources