A Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to identify and prioritize criteria for guiding decision making for postmenopausal osteoporosis treatment in the Brazilian Public Healthcare System

Abstract

Objective: To identify the main criteria and preferences in healthcare decision-making for postmenopausal osteoporosis according to three stakeholder groups (n=3, each): physicians, patient representatives, and public healthcare managers. Methods: A multi-Criteria Decision Analysis framework was performed to generate prioritization rankings between technologies: a literature review formed sets of criteria; an online panel validated the pre-selected criteria; the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method assigned importance weights to each criterion by consensus. Results: The final weighted average included: efficacy (clinical fractures, new vertebral, non-vertebral, hip fractures, and bone mineral density), safety (clinically significant adverse events and tolerability), convenience (adherence and dosing convenience), and economics (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio – ICER, cost per responder, budget impact and indirect costs). New hip and clinical fractures appeared in the top-five positions for all stakeholder groups. For physicians the main criteria were new hip fracture (26.11%) and adverse events (14.64%); similarly, for patient representatives, clinical fracture (25.09%) and new hip fracture (22.84%) were the most important ones, while economic criteria received the lowest weights (1,2% to 0,98%), below dosing convenience, for example (4%). Public healthcare managers prioritized ICER (19.44%) and new hip fractures (16.21%). Conclusions: The presented results have the potential to assist decision-making and treatment prioritization in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although final weightings varied among stakeholders, efficacy outcomes involving fractures were the priority criteria for all of them. It is possible to observe similar results in previously published studies of preferences in osteoporosis.