J Multi‐Crit Decis Anal. 2019;26:153–163. Abstract Background: In 2016, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) launched a call for proposals (CfP) for vaccine development against Lassa, MERS, and Nipah. CEPI is faced with complex decisions that involve confronting trade‐offs between multiple objectives, diverse stakeholder perspectives, and uncertainty in vaccine performance. Objective: This study reports on a multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and its testing on CEPI decisions. Methods: Consultations with CEPI's Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and document reviews helped identify and structure the criteria against which to evaluate proposals. Forty four subject‐matter experts assessed performance of 18 proposals on multiple criteria. SAC preferences were elicited via a survey employing an adapted swing‐weighting technique and were incorporated into measures of value and cost‐ to‐value. A Monte Carlo simulation estimated overall value and ranking probabilities by value and by cost‐to‐value for each proposal. Results: Reviewer assessments and SAC preferences varied significantly. Despite this uncertainty, 14 preferred proposals emerged from the analysis and SAC recommendations on the basis of value and cost‐to‐value. In some cases, SAC recommendations deviated from the analysis because of: less emphasis on cost‐to‐value if budgets seemed underestimated by applicants, more emphasis on the likelihood of generating vaccines for target pathogens versus platform potential against unknown pathogens, and emphasis on funding a diversity of platforms per pathogen. Conclusions: Despite vaccine performance uncertainty and stakeholder preference heterogeneity, MCDA distinguished between options in a way that broadly corresponded to decisions. Divergence between the MCDA and the SAC point to potential updates needed to the model such as platform diversity trade‐offs.

中文翻译：

---

优先投资针对流行病的新型疫苗：多标准决策分析

J多临界Decis肛门。2019; 26：153–163。摘要背景：2016年，流行病防范创新联盟（CEPI）发起了针对拉萨，MERS和Nipah疫苗开发的提案征集（CfP）。CEPI面临着复杂的决策，其中涉及在多个目标，不同利益相关者的观点以及疫苗性能的不确定性之间进行权衡。目的：本研究报告了多标准决策分析（MCDA）及其对CEPI决策的测试。方法：与CEPI的科学咨询委员会（SAC）进行磋商并进行文件审查有助于确定和构建评估提案的标准。四十四名主题专家根据多个标准评估了18项提案的执行情况。SAC偏好是通过一项采用适应性加权加权技术的调查得出的，并且被并入了价值和成本价值比的度量。蒙特卡洛模拟法估算了每个提案的总价值和按价值以及按成本成本比的排名概率。结果：审阅者评估和SAC偏好差异很大。尽管存在不确定性，但基于价值和成本对价值的分析和SAC建议仍提出了14项首选建议。在某些情况下，SAC建议与分析背离，原因是：如果申请人似乎低估了预算，则对价值成本的强调较少；对目标病原体产生疫苗的可能性相对于针对未知病原体的平台潜力更加强调；对资金的重视每个病原体的平台多种多样。结论：尽管疫苗性能不确定且利益相关者的偏好异质性，MCDA仍以与决策大致对应的方式区分了备选方案。MCDA和SAC之间的差异表明该模型需要潜在的更新，例如平台多样性的权衡。