Application of a Value Framework to Determine the Value of Prophylaxis Versus On-Demand Treatment in Adults with Hemophilia A in China

Overview

Journal Adv Ther

Date 2025 Feb 27

PMID 40016439

Authors

Baoying Tan

Ailing Lin

Rong Han

Lu Bai

Jing Sun

Shanlian Hu

Jianwei Xuan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to establish and apply a multicriteria value framework to determine the value of prophylaxis versus on‑demand treatment in adult patients with hemophilia A in China, which could enhance evidence-based care decisions.

Methods: The framework was developed using key literature to identify dimensions and indicators for assessing the value of hemophilia A. We interviewed 21 stakeholders-including clinical experts, medical insurance experts, health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) experts, charity organization representatives, and patient advocacy organization representatives-to evaluate the relative importance of indicators. The interviewees also assessed the value of prophylaxis and on-demand treatments for adults, providing justification for their ratings. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to calculate the weight of each indicator based on stakeholder ratings. A linear additive value function was used to calculate total value scores. The main outcomes of the study include the weighted indicators of the value framework and the comprehensive value scores for different hemophilia A care strategies.

Results: The primary indicators in the value framework were clinical value, economic value, patient value, and social value. These were further broken down into nine secondary indicators. Overall, interviewees rated patient value highest (32.88%), followed by clinical value (30.08%), social value (22.25%), and economic value (14.79%). The adult prophylaxis strategy scored higher than on-demand treatment in all four primary value categories, with the largest difference observed in patient value. The total value score for adult prophylaxis (8.42) was higher than that for on-demand treatment (5.90), with an absolute difference of 2.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-3.36).

Conclusion: The hemophilia value framework affirmed value of prophylaxis for adult patients with hemophilia A versus on-demand treatment, with benefit in terms of clinical value, economic value, patient value, and social value. The study also demonstrates that the value framework is an excellent tool for assisting stakeholders in decision-making that is grounded in patient-centered value in China.

References

Srivastava A, Santagostino E, Dougall A, Kitchen S, Sutherland M, Pipe S . WFH Guidelines for the Management of Hemophilia, 3rd edition. Haemophilia. 2020; 26 Suppl 6:1-158. DOI: 10.1111/hae.14046. View

Srivastava A, Brewer A, Mauser-Bunschoten E, Key N, Kitchen S, Llinas A . Guidelines for the management of hemophilia. Haemophilia. 2012; 19(1):e1-47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2012.02909.x. View

Zhang L, Li H, Zhao H, Zhang X, Ji L, Yang R . Retrospective analysis of 1312 patients with haemophilia and related disorders in a single Chinese institute. Haemophilia. 2004; 9(6):696-702. DOI: 10.1046/j.1351-8216.2003.00826.x. View

Song X, Zhong J, Xue F, Chen L, Li H, Yuan D . An overview of patients with haemophilia A in China: Epidemiology, disease severity and treatment strategies. Haemophilia. 2020; 27(1):e51-e59. DOI: 10.1111/hae.14217. View

Garrison Jr L, Neumann P, Willke R, Basu A, Danzon P, Doshi J . A Health Economics Approach to US Value Assessment Frameworks-Summary and Recommendations of the ISPOR Special Task Force Report [7]. Value Health. 2018; 21(2):161-165. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.009. View

He X, Wang X, Dong C, Zhao M, Wu J . The long-term clinical benefits and economic costs associated with increased use of prophylaxis among patients with haemophilia A in China: Population-based predictions from 2018 to 2033. Haemophilia. 2022; 28(5):726-736. DOI: 10.1111/hae.14603. View

OMahony B, Dolan G, Nugent D, Goodman C . Patient-centred value framework for haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2018; 24(6):873-879. DOI: 10.1111/hae.13456. View

Nugent D, OMahony B, Dolan G . Value of prophylaxis vs on-demand treatment: Application of a value framework in hemophilia. Haemophilia. 2018; 24(5):755-765. DOI: 10.1111/hae.13589. View

Skinner M, Dolan G, Eichler H, OMahony B . A preliminary application of a haemophilia value framework to emerging therapies in haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2022; 28 Suppl 2:9-18. DOI: 10.1111/hae.14511. View

10.

Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z . 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003. View

11.

Schmidt K, Aumann I, Hollander I, Damm K, von der Schulenburg J . Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015; 15:112. PMC: 4690361. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7. View

12.

Zhang C, Ma E, Liu B, Wu B, Gu Z, Lin H . Framework Development for Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs-a Study Protocol Using the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Front Pharmacol. 2022; 13:869319. PMC: 9161709. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.869319. View

13.

Gourzoulidis G, Stefanou G, Economou M, Vakalopoulou S, Filippidis G, Soultatis G . Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Determine the Value of Prophylaxis Relative to On-Demand Treatment in Hemophilia A and Emicizumab versus Replacement Therapy in the Greek Healthcare Setting. Clin Drug Investig. 2021; 42(1):75-85. DOI: 10.1007/s40261-021-01108-4. View