为癌症药物量身定制的水平扫描方法

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Cancer Policy Pub Date : 2023-11-20 DOI:10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441
Jennifer A. Soon , Yat Hang To , Marliese Alexander , Karen Trapani , Paolo A. Ascierto , Sophy Athan , Michael P. Brown , Matthew Burge , Andrew Haydon , Brett Hughes , Malinda Itchins , Thomas John , Steven Kao , Miriam Koopman , Bob T. Li , Georgina V. Long , Jonathan M. Loree , Ben Markman , Tarek M. Meniawy , Alexander M. Menzies , Maarten IJzerman
{"title":"为癌症药物量身定制的水平扫描方法","authors":"Jennifer A. Soon ,&nbsp;Yat Hang To ,&nbsp;Marliese Alexander ,&nbsp;Karen Trapani ,&nbsp;Paolo A. Ascierto ,&nbsp;Sophy Athan ,&nbsp;Michael P. Brown ,&nbsp;Matthew Burge ,&nbsp;Andrew Haydon ,&nbsp;Brett Hughes ,&nbsp;Malinda Itchins ,&nbsp;Thomas John ,&nbsp;Steven Kao ,&nbsp;Miriam Koopman ,&nbsp;Bob T. Li ,&nbsp;Georgina V. Long ,&nbsp;Jonathan M. Loree ,&nbsp;Ben Markman ,&nbsp;Tarek M. Meniawy ,&nbsp;Alexander M. Menzies ,&nbsp;Maarten IJzerman","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government’s pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.</p></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><p>Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"38 ","pages":"Article 100441"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000589/pdfft?md5=5b759bf500a25d441a32b97d74da1dd7&pid=1-s2.0-S2213538323000589-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer A. Soon ,&nbsp;Yat Hang To ,&nbsp;Marliese Alexander ,&nbsp;Karen Trapani ,&nbsp;Paolo A. Ascierto ,&nbsp;Sophy Athan ,&nbsp;Michael P. Brown ,&nbsp;Matthew Burge ,&nbsp;Andrew Haydon ,&nbsp;Brett Hughes ,&nbsp;Malinda Itchins ,&nbsp;Thomas John ,&nbsp;Steven Kao ,&nbsp;Miriam Koopman ,&nbsp;Bob T. Li ,&nbsp;Georgina V. Long ,&nbsp;Jonathan M. Loree ,&nbsp;Ben Markman ,&nbsp;Tarek M. Meniawy ,&nbsp;Alexander M. Menzies ,&nbsp;Maarten IJzerman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government’s pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.</p></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><p>Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"volume\":\"38 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100441\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000589/pdfft?md5=5b759bf500a25d441a32b97d74da1dd7&pid=1-s2.0-S2213538323000589-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000589\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景水平扫描(HS)是对新兴疗法的系统识别,为政策和决策者提供信息。我们开发了一种灵活的、量身定制的HS方法,该方法结合了多标准决策分析权重和德尔菲回合。作为次要目标,我们旨在确定到2025年最有可能影响澳大利亚政府制药预算的黑色素瘤、非小细胞肺癌和结直肠癌的新药,并比较临床医生和消费者在癌症药物报销方面的优先级。方法组成3个肿瘤特异性临床专家小组(共27人)和1个消费者小组(共7人)。根据消费者的意见,制定了六个优先级标准。使用层次分析法(AHP)得出标准权重。候选药物从一级数据库中确定和筛选,并对照二级和三级来源进行验证。临床医生小组参与了一项三轮德尔菲调查,以确定和评分每种癌症类型的前五种药物。结果8周内完成AHP法和德尔菲法。优先标准侧重于毒性、生活质量(QoL)、成本节约、证据强度、生存和未满足的需求。在治疗和非治疗情况下,消费者优先考虑毒性和生活质量,而不是生存收益,而临床医生优先考虑生存。卫生调查结果预测了高成本药物的持续流行。自2021年10月完成以来,HS已经确定了70%提交给药品效益咨询委员会评估的相关药物和60%获得积极建议的药物。结论:在澳大利亚进行的测试表明,我们的方法似乎是一种有效而灵活的HS方法,可以根据消费者和临床角度的增量价值使用引出的权重来确定优先级,从而针对特定疾病类型进行定制。由于卫生保健具有全球利益,我们的示例提供了一个可复制的蓝图,用于将消费者输入和优先事项集成到其他医疗保健环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A tailored approach to horizon scanning for cancer medicines

Background

Horizon scanning (HS) is the systematic identification of emerging therapies to inform policy and decision-makers. We developed an agile and tailored HS methodology that combined multi-criteria decision analysis weighting and Delphi rounds. As secondary objectives, we aimed to identify new medicines in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer most likely to impact the Australian government’s pharmaceutical budget by 2025 and to compare clinician and consumer priorities in cancer medicine reimbursement.

Method

Three cancer-specific clinician panels (total n = 27) and a consumer panel (n = 7) were formed. Six prioritisation criteria were developed with consumer input. Criteria weightings were elicited using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Candidate medicines were identified and filtered from a primary database and validated against secondary and tertiary sources. Clinician panels participated in a three-round Delphi survey to identify and score the top five medicines in each cancer type.

Results

The AHP and Delphi process was completed in eight weeks. Prioritisation criteria focused on toxicity, quality of life (QoL), cost savings, strength of evidence, survival, and unmet need. In both curative and non-curative settings, consumers prioritised toxicity and QoL over survival gains, whereas clinicians prioritised survival. HS results project the ongoing prevalence of high-cost medicines. Since completion in October 2021, the HS has identified 70 % of relevant medicines submitted for Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee assessment and 60% of the medicines that received a positive recommendation.

Conclusion

Tested in the Australian context, our method appears to be an efficient and flexible approach to HS that can be tailored to address specific disease types by using elicited weights to prioritise according to incremental value from both a consumer and clinical perspective.

Policy summary

Since HS is of global interest, our example provides a reproducible blueprint for adaptation to other healthcare settings that integrates consumer input and priorities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
期刊最新文献
"Sociodemographic, Political, and Policy Contexts of Cancer Care: A Comparative Analysis of Countries with the Highest Survival Rates". An empirical investigation into concerns over quality-adjusted life-years: a review of cost-effectiveness analyses in oncology. Trials that treat what should be observed: SWOG 2308, a study of mosunetuzumab-axgb in asymptomatic low tumor burden follicular lymphoma. Changes in employment status and income and workplace organizational support among cancer survivors: A descriptive study in Iran Process evaluation of quality of precancerous cervical lesion screening program in selected public health centers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1