Mehdi Najafzadeh1, Sebastian Schneeweiss2, Niteesh K Choudhry2, Jerry Avorn2, Joshua J Gagne2. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. mnajafzadeh@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Preference weights derived from general population samples are often used for therapeutic decision making. In contrast, patients with cardiovascular disease may have different preferences concerning the benefits and risks of anticoagulant therapy. Using a discrete choice experiment, we compared preferences for anticoagulant treatment outcomes between the general population and patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A sample of the general US population and a sample of patients with cardiovascular disease were selected from online panels. We used a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences in both populations concerning treatment benefits and risks. Seven attributes described hypothetical treatments: non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, minor bleeding, major bleeding, fatal bleeding, and the need for monitoring. We measured preference weights and maximum acceptable risks in both populations. RESULTS: A total of 352 individuals from the general population and 341 patients completed the questionnaire. After propensity score matching, 284 from each group were included in the analysis. On average, the general population members valued a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 4.2% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 2.8% increase in cardiovascular death, or a 14.1% increase in minor bleeding. Patients, in contrast, perceived a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 2.0% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 3.2% increase in cardiovascular death, and a 16.7% increase in minor bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The general population and patients with cardiovascular disease had slightly different preferences for treatment outcomes. The differences can potentially influence estimated benefits and risks and patient-centered treatment decisions.
OBJECTIVES: Preference weights derived from general population samples are often used for therapeutic decision making. In contrast, patients with cardiovascular disease may have different preferences concerning the benefits and risks of anticoagulant therapy. Using a discrete choice experiment, we compared preferences for anticoagulant treatment outcomes between the general population and patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A sample of the general US population and a sample of patients with cardiovascular disease were selected from online panels. We used a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences in both populations concerning treatment benefits and risks. Seven attributes described hypothetical treatments: non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, minor bleeding, major bleeding, fatal bleeding, and the need for monitoring. We measured preference weights and maximum acceptable risks in both populations. RESULTS: A total of 352 individuals from the general population and 341 patients completed the questionnaire. After propensity score matching, 284 from each group were included in the analysis. On average, the general population members valued a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 4.2% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 2.8% increase in cardiovascular death, or a 14.1% increase in minor bleeding. Patients, in contrast, perceived a 1% increased risk of fatal bleeding as being the same as a 2.0% increase in a non-fatal myocardial infarction, a 3.2% increase in cardiovascular death, and a 16.7% increase in minor bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The general population and patients with cardiovascular disease had slightly different preferences for treatment outcomes. The differences can potentially influence estimated benefits and risks and patient-centered treatment decisions.
Authors: Daniel E Singer; Robert A Hughes; Daryl R Gress; Mary A Sheehan; Lynn B Oertel; Sue Ward Maraventano; Dyan Ryan Blewett; Bernard Rosner; J Philip Kistler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1990-11-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Jyotsna Garg; Guohua Pan; Daniel E Singer; Werner Hacke; Günter Breithardt; Jonathan L Halperin; Graeme J Hankey; Jonathan P Piccini; Richard C Becker; Christopher C Nessel; John F Paolini; Scott D Berkowitz; Keith A A Fox; Robert M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mehdi Najafzadeh; Joshua J Gagne; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jennifer M Polinski; Jerry Avorn; Sebastian S Schneeweiss Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-11-11
Authors: Sebastian Schneeweiss; Joshua J Gagne; Amanda R Patrick; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jerry Avorn Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2012-07-10
Authors: F Reed Johnson; Semra Ozdemir; Carol Mansfield; Steven Hass; Corey A Siegel; Bruce E Sands Journal: Risk Anal Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Tommi Tervonen; Anastasia Ustyugova; Sumitra Sri Bhashyam; Gregory Y H Lip; Paolo Verdecchia; Ryan Kwan; Savion Gropper; Jutta Heinrich-Nols; Kevin Marsh Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 5.725