İLAÇ SEKTÖRÜ ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA: KAN SULANDIRICI İLAÇLARIN AHP YÖNTEMİ İLE SEÇİMİ

Abstract

Pharmaceutical industry is one of the fastest growing sectors. Rivalry among the pharmaceutical companies gets harder as the sector grows and different companies release drugs with the same active substances. That’s why, during the prescription process; consideration of the right criteria by the experts and sorting of different drugs accordingly are critical not only to protect interests of the patients but also to act fairly. In this study, various anti-coagulant drugs are evaluated by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method which is among Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques. According to the information we get from a cardiologist as an expert, the most important criteria for the sorting of anti-coagulant drugs are the price, attainability, current studies about the drug, complexity of the follow-up process and the ease of using the drug. Considering the relative weights of the criteria in terms of their importance, the most critical criterion is determined as the current studies about the drug, while the least important one is the price of the drug. After the weights of the criteria are identified; the weights of the alternative drugs are determined. After normalization, final results are attained. According to the results, the most convenient alternative is Riveroxaban, while the least convenient one is Clexane.

Keywords

• AHP
• MCDM
• pharmaceutical industry

İLAÇ SEKTÖRÜ ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA: KAN SULANDIRICI İLAÇLARIN AHP YÖNTEMİ İLE SEÇİMİ

Abstract

İlaç sektörü en hızlı büyüyen sektörlerden biridir. Farklı firmaların benzer içeriklerle çıkardığı ilaçlar arasında bu büyüme ile birlikte rekabet artmaktadır. Bu nedenle, ilaçların reçete edilmesinde uzmanlar tarafından doğru kriterlerin göz önüne alınması ve bu yönde bir sıralama yapılması, hem hastaların çıkarlarını korumak hem de adaletli davranabilmek adına çok önemlidir. Çalışmada, bir Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemi olan Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (Analytical Hierarchy Process / AHP) tekniği kullanılarak piyasada bulunan farklı kan sulandırıcı ilaç alternatifleri değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmada uzman olarak danışılan, üniversite hastanesinde görev yapmakta olan bir kardiyolog doktorun değerlendirmelerine göre kan sulandırıcı ilaçların sıralamasında göz önüne alınan en önemli kriterler ilacın fiyatı, ulaşılabilirliği, ilaç hakkındaki güncel çalışmalar, hastaların takip kolaylığı ve ilacın hastalar açısından kullanım kolaylığıdır. Kriterlerin ağırlıkları belirlenmiş ve en önde gelen kriterin güncel çalışmalar, en az ağırlığa sahip kriterin ise ilacın fiyatı olduğu görülmüştür. Kriter ağırlıklarının elde edilmesinin ardından her ölçüt açısından alternatiflerin ağırlıkları/puanları belirlenmiştir. Puan matrislerinin kriter ağırlığı matrisi ile çarpılması sonucunda nihai alternatif puanlarına ulaşılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre, bu kriterler göz önüne alındığında en önde gelen seçenek Riveroxaban’dır. En son seçenek ise Clexane olmaktadır.

Keywords

• AHP
• ÇKKV
• ilaç sektörü

References

1. A&T Bank. (2019). İlaç Sektörü. Ekonomik Araştırmalar Departmanı. https://atbank.com.tr/documents/ILAC%20SEKTORU%20-%20AGUSTOS%202019.PDF (Erişim Tarihi, 15 Şubat 2021)
2. Anagnostopoulos, K. P., & Vavatsikos, A. P. (2006). An AHP model for construction contractor prequalification. Operational Research, 6(3), 333.
3. Barghash, M., Al-Qatawneh, L., Ramadan, S., & Dababneh, A. (2017). Analytical Hierarchy Process Applied to Supermarket Layout Selection. Journal of Applied Research on Industrial Engineering, 4(4), 215-226.
4. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert systems with applications, 39(3), 2341-2354.
5. Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2011). Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert systems with applications, 38(8), 9407-9424.
6. Danner, M., Hummel, J. M., Volz, F., Van Manen, J. G., Wiegard, B., Dintsios, C. M., Bastian, H., Gerber, A., & IJzerman, M. J. (2011). Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 27(4), 369-375.
7. Fong, P. S. W., & Choi, S. K. Y. (2000). Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process. Construction Management and Economics, 18(5), 547-557.
8. Forghani, A., Sadjadi, S. J., & Farhang Moghadam, B. (2018). A supplier selection model in pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS and MILP: A case study. PloS one, 13(8), e0201604. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201604#sec011 (Erişim Tarihi, 17 Şubat 2021)

9. Hutagalung, A. O., & Hasibuan, S. (2019). Determining the Priority of Medical Equipment Maintenance with Analytical Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering, 15(10).
10. KPMG. (2020). Sektörel Bakış 2020, İlaç. https://home.kpmg/tr/tr/home/gorusler/2020/03/sektorel-bakis-2020-ilac.html (Erişim Tarihi, 15 Şubat 2021)
11. Nag, K., & Helal, M. (2018). Multicriteria Inventory Classification of Diabetes Drugs Using a Comparison of AHP and Fuzzy AHP Models. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (pp. 1456-1460). IEEE.
12. Rangone, A. (1996). An analytical hierarchy process framework for comparing the overall performance of manufacturing departments. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16, 104–119.
13. Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.
14. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.
15. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
16. Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.
17. Šoltés, V., & Gavurová, B. (2014). The Functionality Comparison of the Health Care Systems by the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method. E&M Ekonomie a Management, 17(3), 100-118. doi:10.15240/tul/001/2014-3-009.
18. Tas, A. (2009). A Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting a global supplier in pharmaceutical industry. African Journal of Business Management, 6(14), 5073-5084.
19. Vidal, L. A., Sahin, E., Martelli, N., Berhoune, M., & Bonan, B. (2010). Applying AHP to select drugs to be produced by anticipation in a chemotherapy compounding unit. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1528-1534.
20. Vishwakarma, V. (2018). Estimating quality dimensions under technological integration in phar-maceutical supply chain: a fuzzy MCDM approach. Delving.
21. Wen, Z., Liao, H., Ren, R., Bai, C., Zavadskas, E. K., Antucheviciene, J., & Al-Barakati, A. (2019). Cold chain logistics management of medicine with an integrated multi-criteria decision-making method. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(23), 4843.
22. Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 26(7), 641-658.
23. Zulqarnain, R. M., Abdal, S., Ali, B., Ali, L., Dayan, F., Ahamad, M. I., & Zafar, Z. (2020). Selection of medical clinic for disease diagnosis by using TOPSIS method. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, 61(1), 22-27.