Yuncui Yu1, Lulu Jia2, Yao Meng1, Lihua Hu1, Yiwei Liu1, Xiaolu Nie3, Meng Zhang1, Xuan Zhang1, Sheng Han4, Xiaoxia Peng3, Xiaoling Wang5. 1. Clinical Research Center, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlishi Road, Beijing, 100045, China. 2. Clinical Research Center, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlishi Road, Beijing, 100045, China. jluyu@126.com. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlishi Road, Beijing, 100045, China. 4. International Research Center of Medicinal Administration, Peking University, No. 38 XueyuanLu Road, Beijing, 100191, China. 5. Clinical Research Center, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlishi Road, Beijing, 100045, China. jq_k@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Establishing a comprehensive clinical evaluation system is critical in enacting national drug policy and promoting rational drug use. In China, the 'Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation System for Pediatric Drugs' (CCES-P) project, which aims to compare drugs based on clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness to help decision makers, was recently proposed; therefore, a systematic and objective method is required to guide the process. METHODS: An evidence-based multi-criteria decision analysis model that involved an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was developed, consisting of nine steps: (1) select the drugs to be reviewed; (2) establish the evaluation criterion system; (3) determine the criterion weight based on the AHP; (4) construct the evidence body for each drug under evaluation; (5) select comparative measures and calculate the original utility score; (6) place a common utility scale and calculate the standardized utility score; (7) calculate the comprehensive utility score; (8) rank the drugs; and (9) perform a sensitivity analysis. The model was applied to the evaluation of three different inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) used for asthma management in children (a total of 16 drugs with different dosage forms and strengths or different manufacturers). RESULTS: By applying the drug analysis model, the 16 ICSs under review were successfully scored and evaluated. Budesonide suspension for inhalation (drug ID number: 7) ranked the highest, with comprehensive utility score of 80.23, followed by fluticasone propionate inhaled aerosol (drug ID number: 16), with a score of 79.59, and budesonide inhalation powder (drug ID number: 6), with a score of 78.98. In the sensitivity analysis, the ranking of the top five and lowest five drugs remains unchanged, suggesting this model is generally robust. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based drug evaluation model based on AHP was successfully developed. The model incorporates sufficient utility and flexibility for aiding the decision-making process, and can be a useful tool for the CCES-P.
BACKGROUND: Establishing a comprehensive clinical evaluation system is critical in enacting national drug policy and promoting rational drug use. In China, the 'Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation System for Pediatric Drugs' (CCES-P) project, which aims to compare drugs based on clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness to help decision makers, was recently proposed; therefore, a systematic and objective method is required to guide the process. METHODS: An evidence-based multi-criteria decision analysis model that involved an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was developed, consisting of nine steps: (1) select the drugs to be reviewed; (2) establish the evaluation criterion system; (3) determine the criterion weight based on the AHP; (4) construct the evidence body for each drug under evaluation; (5) select comparative measures and calculate the original utility score; (6) place a common utility scale and calculate the standardized utility score; (7) calculate the comprehensive utility score; (8) rank the drugs; and (9) perform a sensitivity analysis. The model was applied to the evaluation of three different inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) used for asthma management in children (a total of 16 drugs with different dosage forms and strengths or different manufacturers). RESULTS: By applying the drug analysis model, the 16 ICSs under review were successfully scored and evaluated. Budesonide suspension for inhalation (drug ID number: 7) ranked the highest, with comprehensive utility score of 80.23, followed by fluticasone propionate inhaled aerosol (drug ID number: 16), with a score of 79.59, and budesonide inhalation powder (drug ID number: 6), with a score of 78.98. In the sensitivity analysis, the ranking of the top five and lowest five drugs remains unchanged, suggesting this model is generally robust. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based drug evaluation model based on AHP was successfully developed. The model incorporates sufficient utility and flexibility for aiding the decision-making process, and can be a useful tool for the CCES-P.
Authors: David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-19
Authors: Robert Janknegt; Mike Scott; Jill Mairs; Mark Timoney; James McElnay; Rob Brenninkmeijer Journal: Expert Opin Pharmacother Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.889
Authors: Roman Jaeschke; Gordon H Guyatt; Phil Dellinger; Holger Schünemann; Mitchell M Levy; Regina Kunz; Susan Norris; Julian Bion Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-07-31
Authors: Kevin Marsh; Maarten IJzerman; Praveen Thokala; Rob Baltussen; Meindert Boysen; Zoltán Kaló; Thomas Lönngren; Filip Mussen; Stuart Peacock; John Watkins; Nancy Devlin Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jon Sussex; Pierrick Rollet; Martina Garau; Claude Schmitt; Alastair Kent; Adam Hutchings Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Praveen Thokala; Nancy Devlin; Kevin Marsh; Rob Baltussen; Meindert Boysen; Zoltan Kalo; Thomas Longrenn; Filip Mussen; Stuart Peacock; John Watkins; Maarten Ijzerman Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 5.725