Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Method Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Pediatric Drugs Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Application to Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Muhlbacher AC, Kaczynski A. Making Good Decisions in Healthcare with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: the Use, Current Research and Future Development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(1):29–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making—an Introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(1):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marsh K, Jzerman MI, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making-emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Janknegt R, Scott M, Mairs J, Timoney M, McElnay J, Brenninkmeijer R. System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA) as a tool in rational and transparent drug-decision making. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2007;8(Suppl 1):S5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Janknegt R, Steenhoek A, The System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA). A tool in rational drug selection for formulary inclusion. Drugs. 1997;53(4):550–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chongtrakul P, Sumpradit N, Yoongthong W. ISafE and the evidence-based approach for essential medicines selection in Thailand. Essent Drugs Monit. 2005;34:18–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dolan JG. Shared decision-making–transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):418–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Vaidya OS, Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;169(1):1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramli A, Aljunid SM, Sulong S, Md Yusof FA. National Drug Formulary review of statin therapeutic group using the multiattribute scoring tool. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2013;9:491–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Chung S, Kim S, Kim J, Sohn K. Use of multiattribute utility theory for formulary management in a health system. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67(2):128–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sussex J, Rollet P, Garau M, Schmitt C, Kent A, Hutchings A. A pilot study of multicriteria decision analysis for valuing orphan medicines. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1163–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Badriyeh D, Alabbadi I, Fahey M, Al-Khal A, Zaidan M. Multi-indication pharmacotherapeutic multicriteria decision analytic model for the comparative formulary inclusion of proton pump inhibitors in Qatar. Clin Ther. 2016;38(5):1158–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gray A. WHO essential medicines list for children: impact on patient outcomes? Paediatr Drugs. 2011;13(4):209–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. The Subspecialty Group of Respiratory Diseases CPS, Chinese Medical Association. China Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Childhood Asthma 2016. Chinese. J Pediatr. 2016;54(3):167–81.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dan L, Jjing C, Lingli Z, Youping L, Linan Z, Chuan Z. A comparative study of essential medicines lists for children of WHO, India, South Africa and National Essential Medicine List of China. Chin J Evid Based Med. 2015;15(4):393–402.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dakui L, Ping H, Youyu J, Rulong W, Mingkang X. Guideline for comprehensive evaluation of medicine in china (2nd edition). Drug Eval. 2015;12(8):6–25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bahadori M, Babaei M, Mehrabian F. Prioritization of factors influencing job motivation in employees of a military center using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). J Milit Med. 2013;14(4):237–44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bahadori M, Sadeghifar J, Ravangard R, Salimi M (2012) Factors affecting purchasing decisions of radiology equipment. Australas Med J. 2012;5(8):460–1.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Oxman AD. Grade Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(19):1490–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schunemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;337:a744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yuncui Yu and Lulu Jia contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Center, Beijing Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlishi Road, Beijing, 100045, China

    Yuncui Yu, Lulu Jia, Yao Meng, Lihua Hu, Yiwei Liu, Meng Zhang, Xuan Zhang & Xiaoling Wang

  2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing Children’s Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlishi Road, Beijing, 100045, China

    Xiaolu Nie & Xiaoxia Peng

  3. International Research Center of Medicinal Administration, Peking University, No. 38 XueyuanLu Road, Beijing, 100191, China

    Sheng Han

Authors
  1. Yuncui Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lulu Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yao Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lihua Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yiwei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaolu Nie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Meng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sheng Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xiaoxia Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Xiaoling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaoling Wang and Lulu Jia contributed to the conception and design of the study; Yuncui Yu, Yao Meng, Lulu Jia, Lihua Hu, Yiwei Liu, Xiaolu Nie, Meng Zhang, and Xuan Zhang contributed to the evidence collection; Yuncui Yu and Lulu Jia contributed to the data analysis; Lulu Jia and Yuncui Yu contributed to the interpretation of data and drafting the article; and Sheng Han and Xiaoxia Peng gave important recommendations in terms of methodology. All authors approved the final version to be published.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lulu Jia or Xiaoling Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Yuncui Yu, Lulu Jia, Yao Meng, Lihua Hu, Yiwei Liu, Xiaolu Nie, Meng Zhang, Xuan Zhang, Sheng Han, Xiaoxia Peng, and Xiaoling Wang report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Funding

This work was supported by the China-WHO Biennial Collaborative Projects 2014–2015 (WPCHN1408195,5.1,61775), the project founded by the National Health and Family Planning Commission Drug Policy and Essential Medicines Department (Pharmacist [2016] No. 25), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81400766).

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM1 (PDF 181 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, Y., Jia, L., Meng, Y. et al. Method Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Pediatric Drugs Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Application to Inhaled Corticosteroids for Children with Asthma. Pediatr Drugs 20, 195–204 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-017-0278-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-017-0278-5

Search

Navigation