Determining value in the treatment of activated PI3Kδ syndrome in Spain: a multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of key stakeholders

Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2024 May 22:11:124-130. doi: 10.33393/grhta.2024.3041. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: Activated phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)δ syndrome (APDS) is an ultra-rare inborn error of immunity (IEI) combining immunodeficiency and immune dysregulation. This study determined what represents value in APDS in Spain from a multidisciplinary perspective applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methodology.

Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of nine experts scored the evidence matrix. A specific framework for orphan drug evaluation in Spain and the weights assigned by a panel of 98 evaluators and decision-makers was used. Re-evaluation of scores was performed.

Results: APDS is considered a very severe disease with important unmet needs, including misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay. Current management is limited to treatment of symptoms with off-label use of therapies supported by limited evidence. Therapeutic benefit is partial, resulting in limited disease control. Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the only potential curative alternative, is restricted to a reduced patient population and without evidence of long-term efficacy or safety. All options present a limited safety profile. Data on patients' quality of life are lacking. APDS is associated with high pharmacological, medical and indirect costs.

Conclusions: APDS is considered a severe disease, with limited understanding by key stakeholders of how treatment success is assessed in clinical practice, the serious impact that has on patients and the associated high economic burden. This study brings to light how MCDA methodology could represent a useful tool to complement current clinical and decision-making methods used by APDS experts and evaluators.

Keywords: Activated phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)δ syndrome (APDS); Decision-making; Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA); Rare disease.

Grants and funding

Conflict of Interest: RA has received honoraria from Akcea Therapeutics, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, CSL Behring, Janssen, Sobi, Pharming Group N.V., Sanofi and Zogenix International, also receiving honoraria from Pharming for participation in this study; CA, LA, ELG, JLP and CR have received honoraria from Pharming for participation in this study; ON has received consultation honoraria from Pharming and invited as a speaker by Grifols; JGR has participated in remunerated medical advisory board for Pharming; JBT and RF are employees of Pharming. SS and AG are employees of Omakase Consulting which received funding from Pharming to develop and conduct this study and the elaboration of the manuscript. None of the authors have received honoraria for the review of the manuscript.