Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Prioritize Real-World Evidence Studies for Health Technology Management: Outcomes and Lessons Learned by the Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration

• Published in: Current oncology (Toronto) Vol. 31; no. 4; pp. 1876 - 1898
• Main Authors: Takhar, Pam, Geirnaert, Marc, Gavura, Scott, Beca, Jaclyn, Mercer, Rebecca E, Denburg, Avram, Muñoz, Caroline, Tadrous, Mina, Parmar, Ambica, Dionne, Francois, Boehm, Darryl, Chambers, Carole, Craig, Erica, Trudeau, Maureen, Cheung, Matthew C, Houlihan, Joanne, McDonald, Valerie, Pechlivanoglou, Petros, Taylor, Marianne, Wasylenko, Eric, Wranik, Wiesława Dominika, Chan, Kelvin K W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.04.2024
• Subjects: Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use; Canada; Consensus; Decision Support Techniques; decision-analysis; health technology assessment; Humans; multi-criteria decision analysis; Neoplasms - drug therapy; oncology; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - methods; Canada; health technology assessment; decision-analysis; multi-criteria decision analysis; oncology
• ISSN: 1718-7729; 1198-0052; 1718-7729
• DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31040141

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a value assessment tool designed to help support complex decision-making by incorporating multiple factors and perspectives in a transparent, structured approach. We developed an MCDA rating tool, consisting of seven criteria evaluating the importance and feasibility of conducting potential real-world evidence (RWE) studies aimed at addressing uncertainties stemming from initial cancer drug funding recommendations. In collaboration with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Provincial Advisory Group, a validation exercise was conducted to further evaluate the application of the rating tool using RWE proposals varying in complexity. Through this exercise, we aimed to gain insight into consensus building and deliberation processes and to identify efficiencies in the application of the rating tool. An experienced facilitator led a multidisciplinary committee, consisting of 11 Canadian experts, through consensus building, deliberation, and prioritization. A total of nine RWE proposals were evaluated and prioritized as low (n = 4), medium (n = 3), or high (n = 2) priority. Through an iterative process, efficiencies and recommendations to improve the rating tool and associated procedures were identified. The refined MCDA rating tool can help decision-makers prioritize important and feasible RWE studies for research and can enable the use of RWE for the life-cycle evaluation of cancer drugs.