Yumei He, Wei Li, Xiaochen Zhu, Zhifeng Nie, He Zhu, Yingyao Chen, Sheng Han
{"title":"A value framework for lymphoma therapies based on MACBETH method.","authors":"Yumei He, Wei Li, Xiaochen Zhu, Zhifeng Nie, He Zhu, Yingyao Chen, Sheng Han","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325000169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The rising cost of oncology care has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of cancer innovation. This study aimed to apply the MACBETH approach to the development of a value assessment framework (VAF) for lymphoma therapies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-attribute value theory methodological process was adopted. Analogous MCDA steps developed by the International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) were carried out and a diverse multi-stakeholder group was recruited to construct the framework. The criteria were identified through a systematic literature review and selected according to the importance score of each criterion given by stakeholders, related research and expert opinions. The MACBETH method was used to score the performance of alternatives by establishing value functions for each criterion and to assign weight to criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine criteria were included in the final framework and a reusable model was built: quality adjusted life years (QALYs), median progression-free survival, objective response rate, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3-4), rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, annual direct medical costs, dosage and administration, the number of alternative medicines with the same indication and mechanism, mortality of the disease. The weights of each criterion in the order presented above are 17.43 percent, 16.11 percent, 14.39 percent,13.54 percent,11.83 percent,11.30 percent,7.08 percent,4.59 percent, and 3.73 percent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A criterion-based valuation framework was constructed using multiple perspectives to provide a quantitative assessment tool in facilitating the delivery of affordable and valuable lymphoma treatment. Further research is needed to optimize its use as part of policy-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e49"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12322853/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325000169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The rising cost of oncology care has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of cancer innovation. This study aimed to apply the MACBETH approach to the development of a value assessment framework (VAF) for lymphoma therapies.
Methods: A multi-attribute value theory methodological process was adopted. Analogous MCDA steps developed by the International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) were carried out and a diverse multi-stakeholder group was recruited to construct the framework. The criteria were identified through a systematic literature review and selected according to the importance score of each criterion given by stakeholders, related research and expert opinions. The MACBETH method was used to score the performance of alternatives by establishing value functions for each criterion and to assign weight to criteria.
Results: Nine criteria were included in the final framework and a reusable model was built: quality adjusted life years (QALYs), median progression-free survival, objective response rate, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3-4), rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, annual direct medical costs, dosage and administration, the number of alternative medicines with the same indication and mechanism, mortality of the disease. The weights of each criterion in the order presented above are 17.43 percent, 16.11 percent, 14.39 percent,13.54 percent,11.83 percent,11.30 percent,7.08 percent,4.59 percent, and 3.73 percent.
Conclusions: A criterion-based valuation framework was constructed using multiple perspectives to provide a quantitative assessment tool in facilitating the delivery of affordable and valuable lymphoma treatment. Further research is needed to optimize its use as part of policy-making.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.