Table 4.
MCDA outcomes for drug-indication pairs appraised by AHTAPol between 2007 and 2011 (economic criteria included)
| No. | Drug-indication pair | Indication uniqueness | Disease rarity | Disease severity | Adv.tech. | Manufacturing technology | Therapeutic alternative | Sci. evid. clin.eff | Benefits from use of medicine | Cost effectiveness | Budget impact | Total number of points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THRESHOLD | 75 % | 15 points | ||||||||||
| 1 | Nexavar (HCC) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| 2 | Nplate | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| 3 | Cystadane | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 12 |
| 4 | Increlex | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 12 |
| 5 | Revlimid (MM/S) | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 12 |
| 6 | Yondelis | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 |
| 7 | Somavert | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 11 |
| 8 | Tasigna | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| 9 | Torisel | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| THRESHOLD | 50 % | 10 points | ||||||||||
| 10 | Vidaza | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| 11 | Atriance | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 12 | Nexavar (RCC) | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| THRESHOLD | 25 % | 5 points |
Adv. tech. Advancement of technology, Sci. evid. clin. eff. scientific evidence for clinical efficiency, NA no data available, HCC Hepatocellular carcinoma, GIST Malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors, MM/S Myeloproliferative syndrome, DFSP Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, RCC Renal cell carcinoma, MM Multiple myeloma, ALL Ph+ Philadelphia chromosome positive chronic myeloid leukemia, MDS/MPD Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative diseases