The use of multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) to make a formulary decision involving calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) is described. The MAUT method is a procedure for identifying, characterizing, and comparing the many variables that may affect a decision. Although applications in pharmacy have been infrequent, MAUT should be particularly appealing to formulary committees. The steps of the MAUT method are (1) determine the viewpoint of the decision makers, (2) identify the decision alternatives, (3) identify the attributes to be evaluated, (4) identify the factors to be used in evaluating the attributes, (5) establish a utility scale for scoring each factor, (6) transform the values for each factor to its utility scale, (7) determine weights for each attribute and factor, (8) calculate the total utility score for each decision alternative, (9) determine which decision alternative has the greatest total score, and (10) perform a sensitivity analysis. The viewpoint of a formulary committee in a health maintenance organization was simulated to develop a model for using the MAUT method to compare CCBs for single-agent therapy of chronic stable angina in ambulatory patients for one year. The attributes chosen were effectiveness, safety, patient acceptance, and cost and weighted 36%, 29%, 21%, and 14%, respectively, as contributions to the evaluation. The rank order of the decision alternatives was (1) generic verapamil, (2) brand-name verapamil, (3) diltiazem, (4) nicardipine, and (5) nifedipine. The MAUT method provides a standardized yet flexible format for comparing and selecting among formulary alternatives.

 

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. L Bettinger, G. Shuler, D. R Jones, and J. P Wilson Schizophrenia: Multi-Attribute Utility Theory Approach to Selection of Atypical Antipsychotics Ann. Pharmacother., February 1, 2007; 41(2): 201 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. de Bock, S. A. Reijneveld, J. C. van Houwelingen, J. A. Knottnerus, and J. Kievit Multiattribute Utility Scores for Predicting Family Physicians' Decisions Regarding Sinusitis Med Decis Making, January 1, 1999; 19(1): 58 - 65. [Abstract] [PDF]