基于麦克白方法的淋巴瘤治疗价值框架。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yumei He, Wei Li, Xiaochen Zhu, Zhifeng Nie, He Zhu, Yingyao Chen, Sheng Han
{"title":"基于麦克白方法的淋巴瘤治疗价值框架。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:肿瘤治疗成本的上升促使人们努力量化癌症创新的整体价值。本研究旨在应用麦克白方法来开发淋巴瘤治疗的价值评估框架(VAF)。方法:采用多属性值理论方法。类似的MCDA步骤由国际卫生经济学和结果研究学会(ISPOR)制定,并招募了一个多元化的多方利益相关者团体来构建框架。通过系统的文献综述确定标准,并根据利益相关者,相关研究和专家意见给出的每个标准的重要性评分进行选择。麦克白方法通过为每个标准建立价值函数并为标准分配权重来对备选方案的性能进行评分。结果:最终框架纳入了9项标准,并建立了可重复使用的模型:质量调整生命年(QALYs)、中位无进展生存期、客观缓解率、严重不良事件发生率(3-4级)、不良事件导致的停药率、年直接医疗费用、剂量和给药、具有相同适应症和机制的替代药物数量、疾病死亡率。各指标的权重依次为17.43%、16.11%、14.39%、13.54%、11.83%、11.30%、7.08%、4.59%、3.73%。结论:从多个角度构建了基于标准的评估框架,为促进提供负担得起且有价值的淋巴瘤治疗提供了定量评估工具。需要进一步研究以使其作为决策的一部分得到最佳利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A value framework for lymphoma therapies based on MACBETH method.

A value framework for lymphoma therapies based on MACBETH method.

A value framework for lymphoma therapies based on MACBETH method.

A value framework for lymphoma therapies based on MACBETH method.

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.

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
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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