Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 859-871

  Tervonen, Tommi ^a   Naci, Huseyin ^b   Van Valkenhoef, Gert ^c   Ades, Anthony E ^d   Angelis, Aris ^b   Hillege, Hans L ^c   Postmus, Douwe ^c  

^a Erasmus University Rotterdam   (Netherlands)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

decision AIDS; decision analysis; multiattribute utility function

Indexed keywords

HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PRIMARY PREVENTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; PRIMARY PREVENTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84941756692     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15587005     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, et al. Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014; 23: 667-78.
2. Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege HL, Postmus D,. A stochastic multi-criteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Stat Med. 2011; 30: 1419-28.
3. Holden WL,. Benefit-risk analysis: a brief review and proposed quantitative approaches. Drug Saf. 2003; 26: 853-62.
4. Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S,. A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines-part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007; 16 (Suppl. I): S12-5.
5. Felli JC, Noel RA, Cavazzoni PA,. A multiattribute model for evaluating the benefit-risk profiles of treatment alternatives. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29 (1): 104-15.
6. van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, de Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D,. Multi-criteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65 (4): 394-403.
7. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Ades AE,. Comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins: a study-level network meta-analysis of 234,550 participants from 133 randomized controlled trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013; 6 (4): 390-9.
8. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Tsoi B, Toor H, Fleurence R, Ades AE,. Comparative benefits of statins in primary and secondary prevention of major coronary events and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013; 20 (4): 641-57.
9. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Fleurence R, Ades AE,. Comparative effects of statins on major cerebrovascular events: a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. Q J Med. 2013; 106 (4): 299-306.
10. Lahdelma R, Makkonen S, Salminen P,. Multivariate Gaussian criteria in SMAA. Eur J Oper Res. 2006; 170 (3): 957-70.
11. Lahdelma R, Makkonen S, Salminen P,. Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems. Omega. 2009; 37 (1): 79-92.
12. Ades AE,. ISPOR states its position on network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2011; 14 (4): 414-6.
13. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT,. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005; 331: 897-900.
14. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ,. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33 (5): 607-17.
15. Lu G, Ades AE,. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004; 23 (20): 3105-24.
16. Naci H,. Generating comparative data on clinical benefits and harms of statins to inform prescribing decisions: evidence from network meta-analyses. Available from: URL: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/973/1/Naci-Generating-Comparative-Data-Clinical-Benefits-Harms-Statins.pdf
17. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE,. Evidence synthesis for decision making 5: the baseline natural history model. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33 (5): 657-70.
18. Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA. 2002; 288 (23): 2998-3007.
19. Keeney RL, Raiffa H,. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 1976.
20. Weber M, Borcherding K,. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Oper Res. 1993; 67 (1): 1-12.
21. Lahdelma R, Salminen P,. SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Oper Res. 2001; 49 (3): 444-54.
22. Tervonen T, Figueira JR,. A survey on stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis methods. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 2008; 15 (1-2): 1-14.
23. Tervonen T, Lahdelma R,. Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2007; 178 (2): 500-13.
24. Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Batürk N, Postmus D,. Hit-and-run enables efficient weight generation for simulation-based multiple criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2013; 224 (3): 552-9.
25. van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Postmus D,. Notes on €hit-and-run enables efficient weight generation for simulation-based multiple criteria decision analysis.€. Eur J Oper Res. 2014; 239 (3): 865-67.
26. Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Naci H, Postmus D,. Analysis code and data set for €Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment-Choosing Among Statins in Primary Prevention.€. Available from: URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16856
27. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Report of the CHMP working group on benefit-risk assessment models and methods. Available from: URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Regulatory-and-procedural-guideline/2010/01/WC500069668.pdf
28. EMA Benefit-Risk Methodology Project Team. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes. Available from: URL: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/Report/2012/03/WC500123819.pdf
29. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). PDUFA reauthorization performance goals and procedures fiscal years 2013 through 2017. Available from: URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescription-druguserfee/ucm270412.pdf
30. Garrison LP,. Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows? Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28 (10): 855-65.
31. Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, Bian B, Lis Y, Raisch DW,. A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy: report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health. 2010; 13 (5): 657-66.
32. Sorenson C, Naci H, Cylus J, Mossialos E,. Evidence of comparative efficacy should have a formal role in European drug approvals. BMJ. 2011; 343: d4849.
33. Stafford RS, Todd HW, Lavori LW,. New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361 (13): 1230-3.
34. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Kristiansen A, Akl EA,. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015; 350: g7624.
35. Naci H, van Valkenhoef GHM, Higgins JPT, Fleurence RL, Ades AE,. Evidence-based prescribing: combining network meta-analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis to choose among drugs. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014; 7: 787-92.