Affiliations 

  • 1 Pharmacy Practice & Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia
  • 2 Office of the Senior Director of Pharmaceutical Services, Ministry of Health Malaysia
  • 3 National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency, Ministry of Health Malaysia
  • 4 Former Head of Therapeutic Drug Working Committee (TDWC) Respiratory (2014-2020), Serdang Hospital, Ministry of Health Malaysia
MDM Policy Pract, 2021 03 30;6(1):2381468321994063.
PMID: 33855190 DOI: 10.1177/2381468321994063

Abstract

Objectives. The current health technology assessment used to evaluate respiratory inhalers is associated with limitations that have necessitated the development of an explicit formulary decision-making framework to ensure balance between the accessibility, value, and affordability of medicines. This study aimed to develop a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, apply the framework to potential and currently listed respiratory inhalers in the Ministry of Health Medicines Formulary (MOHMF), and analyze the impacts of applying the outputs, from the perspective of listing and delisting medicines in the formulary. Methods. The overall methodology of the framework development adhered to the recommendations of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. The MCDA framework was developed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and involved all relevant stakeholders. The framework was then applied to 27 medicines, based on data gathered from the highest levels of available published evidence, pharmaceutical companies, and professional opinions. The performance scores were analyzed using the additive model. The end values were then deliberated by an expert committee. Results. A total of eight main criteria and seven subcriteria were determined by the stakeholders. The economic criterion was weighted at 30%. Among the noneconomic criteria, "patient suitability" was weighted the highest. Based on the MCDA outputs, the expert committee recommended one potential medicine (out of three; 33%) be added to the MOHMF and one existing medicine (out of 24; 4%) be removed/delisted from the MOHMF. The other existing medicines remained unchanged. Conclusions. Although this framework was useful for deciding to add new medicines to the formulary, it appears to be less functional and impactful for the removal/delisting existing medicines from the MOHMF. The generalizability of this conclusion to other formulations remains to be confirmed.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.