Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug 14:11:1203.
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01203. eCollection 2020.

Potential Criteria for Frameworks to Support the Evaluation of Innovative Medicines in Upper Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Literature Review on Value Frameworks and Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses

Ivett Jakab  1 , Bertalan Németh  1 , Baher Elezbawy  2 , Melis Almula Karadayı  3 , Hakan Tozan  3 , Sabahattin Aydın  3 , Jie Shen  4 , Zoltán Kaló  1   5
Affiliations

Potential Criteria for Frameworks to Support the Evaluation of Innovative Medicines in Upper Middle-Income Countries-A Systematic Literature Review on Value Frameworks and Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses

Ivett Jakab et al. Front Pharmacol. .

Abstract

Background: Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a formal decision support framework, has been growing in popularity recently in the field of health care. MCDA can support pricing and reimbursement decisions on the macro level, which is of great importance especially in countries with more limited resources.

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to facilitate the development of future MCDA frameworks, by proposing a set of criteria focusing on the purchasing decisions of single-source innovative pharmaceuticals in upper middle-income countries.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted on the decision criteria included in value frameworks (VFs) or MCDA tools. Scopus, Medline, databases of universities, websites of Health Technology Assessment Agencies, and other relevant organizations were included in the search. Double title-abstract screening and double full-text review were conducted, and all extracted data were double-checked. A team of researchers performed the merging and selection process of the extracted criteria.

Results: A total of 1,878 articles entered the title and abstract screening. From these, 341 were eligible to the full-text review, and 36 were included in the final data extraction phase. From these articles 394 criteria were extracted in total. After deduplication and clustering, 26 different criteria were identified. After the merging and selection process, a set of 16 general criteria was proposed.

Conclusion: Based on the results of the systematic literature review, a pool of 16 criteria was selected. This can serve as a starting point for constructing MCDA frameworks in upper middle-income countries after careful adaptation to the local context.

Keywords: developing country; health technology assessment; multiple criteria; pharmaceutical; reimbursement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow of criteria through different phases of the foundation work and the recommended national adaption.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Angelis A., Kanavos P. (2016). Value-based assessment of new medical technologies: towards a robust methodological framework for the application of multiple criteria decision analysis in the context of health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 34 (5), 435–446. 10.1007/s40273-015-0370-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Angelis A., Kanavos P. (2017). Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for evaluating new medicines in health technology assessment and beyond: the Advance Value Framework. Soc. Sci. Med. 188, 137–156. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Angelis A., Phillips L. D. (2020). Advancing structured decision-making in drug regulation at the FDA and EMA. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2020, 1–11. 10.1111/bcp.14425 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Annemans L., Aymé S., Le Cam Y., Facey K., Gunther P., Nicod E., et al. (2017). Recommendations from the European working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in rare diseases (ORPH-VAL). Orphanet. J. Rare Dis. 12 (1), 50. 10.1186/s13023-017-0601-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Antioch K. M., Drummond M. F., Niessen L. W., Vondeling H. (2017). International lessons in new methods for grading and integrating cost effectiveness evidence into clinical practice guidelines. Cost Effect. Res. Allocation 15 (1), 1. 10.1186/s12962-017-0063-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources