The objective of this study was to present the use of the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainty, Risk, and Linked decisions (PrOACT-URL) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) frameworks as a methodological innovation with the potential to support decision-making in the process of incorporating and monitoring technologies in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).
Methods
The present is a case study that used these frameworks as a basis for the benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of chemotherapy treatment options for multiple myeloma (MM) in the context of a Brazilian public hospital.
Results
The application of the PrOACT-URL was not sufficient to guide stakeholders in making decisions about the best treatment alternative for MM, making it necessary to complement the qualitative analysis with the MCDA. In general, comparing the average scores for the five treatment options, the overall survival result was higher in four of the five treatments available for MM. The results that presented the lowest score were the risk of thrombosis and the risk of neuropathy. The sensitivity analysis showed that, for most stakeholder groups (managers, academia and clinicians), the treatment with the highest total value in the ranking was treatment with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone (CTD).
Conclusions
The present case study showed that cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone presented the best benefit-risk balance for the treatment of MM and highlights the importance of the complementarity of these two structured approaches for more transparent decision-making, with an expansion of the deliberative process and the incorporation of preferences from different stakeholders.
Mt-IsaSHallgreenCEWangN, et al.Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2014; 23: 667–678.
2.
KürzingerMLDouarinLUzunI, et al.Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature. Ther Adv Drug Saf2020; 11: 1–12.
3.
HughesDWaddinghamEMt-IsaS, et al.Recommendations for benefit–risk assessment methodologies and visual representations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2016; 25: 251–262.
Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European Consortium (PROTECT) [internet], https://protectbenefitrisk.eu/ (2023 [cited 2023 July 15]).
6.
CampolinaAGSoárezPCDAmaralFd, et al.Análise de decisão multicritérios para alocação de recursos e avaliação de tecnologias em saúde: tão longe e tão perto?Cad Saude Publica2017; 33: 1–15.
7.
TervonenTVeldwijkJPayneK, et al.Quantitative benefit-risk assessment in medical product decision making: a good practices report of an ISPOR task force. Value Health2023; 26: 449–460.
8.
BaltussenRNiessenL. Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc2006; 4: 14.
9.
YoungkongSBaltussenRTantivessS, et al.Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health2012; 15: 961–970.
10.
ThokalaPDevlinNMarshK, 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 Health2016; 19: 1–13.
11.
MarshKIJzermanMThokalaP, 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 Health2016; 19: 125–137.
12.
CampolinaAGSuzumuraEAHongQN, et al.Multicriteria decision analysis in health care decision in oncology: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res2022; 22: 365–380.
13.
YinRK. Estudo de Caso: planejamento e métodos. Tradução: Daniel Grassi. 2a edição. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2001.
14.
HallgreenCEvan den HamHAMt-IsaS, et al.Benefit-risk assessment in a post-market setting: a case study integrating real-life experience into ben[efit-risk methodology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2014; 23: 974–983.
15.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Política Nacional de Gestão de Tecnologias em Saúde. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2010.
16.
NixonRDierigCMt-IsaS, et al.A case study using the PrOACT-URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment. Biom J2016; 58: 8–27.
17.
HoffPMG. Manual de condutas em oncologia. 2a ed. São Paulo: Editora Ateneu, 2013.
18.
ReederCBReeceDEKukretiV, et al.Longterm survival with cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol2014; 167: 563–565.
19.
PetrucciMTGiraldoPCorradiniP, et al.A prospective, international phase 2 study of bortezomib retreatment in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol2013; 160: 649–659.
20.
KurtinSKnopCSMillironT. Subcutaneous administration of bortezomib: strategies to reduce injection site reactions. J Adv Pract Oncol2012; 3: 406–410.
21.
GoodwinPWrightG. Decision analysis for management judgment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
22.
HallgreenCEMt-IsaSLieftuchtA, et al.Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2016; 25: 238–250.
23.
CrusoeEDQHigashiFMartinezG, et al.Superiority of the triple combination of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone versus cyclophosphamide, thalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, eligible for transplantation. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther2020; 42: 118–124.
24.
DrummondPLMSantosRMMDReisAMM, et al.Real-world effectiveness and safety of multiple myeloma treatments based on thalidomide and bortezomib: a retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2020 in a Brazilian metropolis. Cancer Epidemiol2023; 85: 102377.
25.
UnoSMidorikawaSInoueK, et al.Survival outcomes among patients with multiple myeloma in the era of novel agents: exploratory assessment using an electronic medical record database in Japan. PLoS One2023; 18: e0285947.
26.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Departamento de Gestão e Incorporação de Tecnologias em Saúde. Bortezomibe para o tratamento de pacientes adultos com mieloma múltiplo, não previamente tratados, elegíveis ao transplante autólogo de células tronco hematopoiéticas. [recurso eletrônico] / Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Departamento de Gestão e Incorporação de Tecnologias em Saúde. – Brasília : Ministério da Saúde, 2020. 9 p. : il, https://www.gov.br/conitec/pt-br/midias/consultas/relatorios/2020/relatorio_bortezomibe_mieloma_inelegiveis_cp_30_2020.pdf.
27.
SonneveldPGoldschmidtHRosiñolL, et al.Bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction treatment before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of phase III randomized, controlled trials. J Clin Oncol2013; 31: 3279–3287.
28.
NookaAKKaufmanJLBeheraM, et al.Bortezomib-containing induction regimensin transplant-eligible myeloma patients: a meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Cancer2013; 119: 4119–4128.
29.
AgapovaMDevineEBBresnahanBW, et al.Applying quantitative benefit-risk analysis to aid regulatory decision making in diagnostic imaging: methods, challenges, and opportunities. Acad Radiol2014; 21: 1138–1143.
30.
RajuGKGurumurthiKDomikeR, et al.A benefit-risk analysis approach to capture regulatory decision-making: multiple myeloma. Clin Pharmacol Ther2018; 103: 67–76.
31.
PostmusDRichardSBereN, et al.Individual trade-offs between possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments: results from a stated preference study with patients with multiple myeloma. Oncologist2018; 23: 44–51.
32.
AguiarPMde Mendonça LimaTColleoniGWB, et al.Efficacy and safety of bortezomib, thalidomide, and lenalidomide inmultiple myeloma: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2017; 113: 195–212.
33.
QerimiVNestorovskaAKSterjevZ, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of treating transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients in Macedonia. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res2018; 10: 327–338.
34.
MalieneVDixon-GoughRMalysN. Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: sensitivity analysis of multiple criteria decision-making methods. Appl Soft Comput2018; 67: 286–298.
