Objectives: The PROMÉTHÉE II multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method performs a preference index as a step of its implementation to express a preference level that an alternative can exert over another one, according to their performances on a set of criteria. This study aims to use the PROMÉTHÉE II’s preference index in order to support the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) analysis between psoriatic arthritis treatments.

Methods: The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies Health (CADTH) published a cost-utility analysis (CUA) in 2016 presenting ICUR results for five psoriatic arthritis treatments (golimumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab) versus placebo. The PROMÉTHÉE II’s preference index was computed from CADTH CUA data to express the preference level from 0.00% to 100.00% that each treatment exerts over placebo. To accomplish this, the studied treatments along with placebo formed a set of alternatives, and the total cost of each treatment along with quality-adjusted life-year used in the studied CUA formed a set of criteria.

Results: Infliximab vs. placebo achieved the highest ICUR ($61,945) and the highest preference level (50.00%). Golimumab reached an ICUR equal to $26,264 and 44.66% preference index. The distance between those ICURs is bigger than the distance between the preferences. Ustekinumab and adalimumab reached an ICUR bigger than golimumab ($40,958, $37,946, respectively), but a smaller preference level over placebo (31.84%, 35.47%). Despite the ustekinumab ICUR is bigger than adalimumab ICUR, its preference level is smaller. It was computed an ICUR equal to $37,604 and a 46.37% preference level for etanercept. Comparing etanercept and infliximab results, the distance between their ICURs is notoriously bigger than the distance between preferences.

Conclusions: The MCDA approach here proposed generated a preference index from CADTH CUA data for five psoriatic arthritis treatments over placebo. This can assist the decision makers to analyze and compare ICURs.