PrOACT-URL and MCDA for benefit-risk assessment in multiple myeloma: A case study.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Sidney Marcel Domingues, Erica Aranha Suzumura, Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina, Patrícia Coelho de Soarez
{"title":"PrOACT-URL and MCDA for benefit-risk assessment in multiple myeloma: A case study.","authors":"Sidney Marcel Domingues, Erica Aranha Suzumura, Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina, Patrícia Coelho de Soarez","doi":"10.1177/10781552251374555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionThe 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).MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice","volume":" ","pages":"10781552251374555"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10781552251374555","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionThe 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).MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.

PrOACT-URL和MCDA用于多发性骨髓瘤的获益-风险评估:一个案例研究。
本研究的目的是介绍问题、目标、替代方案、后果、权衡、不确定性、风险和关联决策(PrOACT-URL)和多标准决策分析(MCDA)框架作为一种方法学创新,在巴西统一卫生系统(SUS)整合和监测技术过程中支持决策的潜力。方法目前是一个案例研究,在巴西公立医院的背景下,使用这些框架作为多发性骨髓瘤(MM)化疗方案的获益-风险评估(BRA)的基础。结果PrOACT-URL的应用不足以指导利益相关者对MM的最佳治疗方案做出决策,因此有必要与MCDA进行定性分析的补充。总的来说,比较五种治疗方案的平均得分,MM的五种治疗方案中有四种的总体生存结果更高。得分最低的结果是血栓形成风险和神经病变风险。敏感性分析显示,对于大多数利益相关者群体(管理人员、学术界和临床医生)来说,排名中总价值最高的治疗是环磷酰胺、沙利度胺和地塞米松(CTD)治疗。本案例研究表明,环磷酰胺、沙利度胺和地塞米松是治疗多发性骨髓瘤的最佳获益-风险平衡,并强调了这两种结构化方法的互补性对于更透明的决策的重要性,包括扩大审议过程和纳入不同利益相关者的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
276
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to educating health professionals about providing pharmaceutical care to patients with cancer. It is the official publication of the International Society for Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Publishing pertinent case reports and consensus guidelines...
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信