Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hl5gf Total loading time: 0.249 Render date: 2023-02-01T06:45:25.548Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

PP084 Diabetic Macular Edema: A Comparison Between Treatment Options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2018

Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
INTRODUCTION:

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) aims at providing decision makers with relevant data, matching different perspectives, with an evidence-based approach. The most common framework used is the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Core Model (1): HTA may be further supported by a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) (2,3), leading to a final quantitative synthesis, facilitating the appraisal phase.

This project presents a multi-dimensional comparison of the technologies available for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, Dexamethasone implant and off-label Bevacizumab), comparing three Italian Regions: Lombardy, Liguria and Veneto.

METHODS:

The nine EUnetHTA dimensions were first prioritized by seventeen multidisciplinary evaluators. Thereafter a further nine professionals attributed a 3-level rating score (from “1” not performant, to “3” most performant) to each dimension and sub-dimension, after carefully assessing the three HTA reports. In conclusion, the investigation of statistically significant differences between the attributed scores of the evaluators was conducted, using a multi-variate analysis.

RESULTS:

No statistically significant differences were reported in the prioritization of each dimension, except for the equity (more important in Liguria and in Lombardy) and the economic financial dimensions (more relevant in Veneto and in Lombardy).

Notwithstanding the evaluators’ different professional titles, job roles, center size, and various Regional contexts, they attributed similar scores to the HTA dimensions during the appraisal phase (even though conducted in different years, in 2015 and 2016). This finding demonstrates the robustness of both the evaluations and the final MCDA results: i) no statistically inter-regional significant differences emerged regarding Ranibizumab and Aflibercept (p-value >.05); ii) no statistically significant inter-regional differences emerged regarding Dexamethasone, except for the assessments in the clinical dimensions (p-value = .026), since in Lombardy Region the evaluation was carried out earlier in the technology's life-cycle.

CONCLUSIONS:

Dexamethasone was consistently attributed a higher total score, considering the final normalised weight derived from the MCDA approach (p-value =.001).

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

REFERENCES:

1. EUnetHTA, The HTA Core Model, Version 2.1, April 2015. Available online at: http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/model/HTACoreModel2.1.pdfGoogle Scholar
2. Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, 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):113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Thokala, P, Duenas, A. Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Value Health. 2012;15 (8):1172–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You have Access
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

PP084 Diabetic Macular Edema: A Comparison Between Treatment Options
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

PP084 Diabetic Macular Edema: A Comparison Between Treatment Options
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

PP084 Diabetic Macular Edema: A Comparison Between Treatment Options
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *