Literature DB >> 31707910

Personalizing Medical Treatment Decisions: Integrating Meta-analytic Treatment Comparisons with Patient-Specific Risks and Preferences.

Christopher Weyant1, Margaret L Brandeau1, Sanjay Basu2,3,4.   

Abstract

Background. Network meta-analyses (NMAs) that compare treatments for a given condition allow physicians to identify which treatments have higher or lower probabilities of reducing the risks of disease complications or increasing the risks of treatment side effects. Translating these data into personalized treatment plans requires integration of NMA data with patient-specific pretreatment risk estimates and preferences regarding treatment objectives and acceptable risks. Methods. We introduce a modeling framework to integrate data probabilistically from NMAs with data on individualized patient risk estimates for disease outcomes, treatment preferences (such as willingness to incur greater side effects for increased life expectancy), and risk preferences. We illustrate the modeling framework by creating personalized plans for antipsychotic drug treatment and evaluating their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Results. Compared with treating all patients with the drug that yields the greatest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) on average (amisulpride), personalizing the selection of antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia patients over the next 5 years would be expected to yield 0.33 QALYs (95% credible interval [crI]: 0.30-0.37) per patient at an incremental cost of $4849/QALY gained (95% crI: dominant-$12,357), versus 0.29 and 0.04 QALYs per patient when accounting for only risks or preferences, respectively, but not both. Limitations. The analysis uses a linear, additive utility function to reflect patient treatment preferences and does not consider potential variations in patient time discounting. Conclusions. Our modeling framework rigorously computes what physicians normally have to do mentally. By integrating 3 key components of personalized medicine-evidence on efficacy, patient risks, and patient preferences-the modeling framework can provide personalized treatment decisions to improve patient health outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  medical decision making; personalized medicine; schizophrenia

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31707910      PMCID: PMC6895439          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19884927

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  34 in total

1.  Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events Associated With Glucose-Lowering Drugs in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Suetonia C Palmer; Dimitris Mavridis; Antonio Nicolucci; David W Johnson; Marcello Tonelli; Jonathan C Craig; Jasjot Maggo; Vanessa Gray; Giorgia De Berardis; Marinella Ruospo; Patrizia Natale; Valeria Saglimbene; Sunil V Badve; Yeoungjee Cho; Annie-Claire Nadeau-Fredette; Michael Burke; Labib Faruque; Anita Lloyd; Nasreen Ahmad; Yuanchen Liu; Sophanny Tiv; Natasha Wiebe; Giovanni F M Strippoli
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis.

Authors:  Tommi Tervonen; Gert van Valkenhoef; Erik Buskens; Hans L Hillege; Douwe Postmus
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories.

Authors:  P W Wilson; R B D'Agostino; D Levy; A M Belanger; H Silbershatz; W B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-05-12       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment.

Authors:  Tommi Tervonen; Heather Gelhorn; Sumitra Sri Bhashyam; Jiat-Ling Poon; Katharine S Gries; Anne Rentz; Kevin Marsh
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 2.890

5.  Interpreting patient decisional conflict scores: behavior and emotions in decisions about treatment.

Authors:  Anouk M Knops; Astrid Goossens; Dirk T Ubbink; Dink A Legemate; Lukas J Stalpers; Patrick M Bossuyt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 6.  A systematic review of mortality in schizophrenia: is the differential mortality gap worsening over time?

Authors:  Sukanta Saha; David Chant; John McGrath
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2007-10

7.  Addressing preference heterogeneity in public health policy by combining Cluster Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Proof of Method.

Authors:  Mette Kjer Kaltoft; Robin Turner; Michelle Cunich; Glenn Salkeld; Jesper Bo Nielsen; Jack Dowie
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2015-05-14

8.  Weighing Clinical Evidence Using Patient Preferences: An Application of Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

Authors:  Henk Broekhuizen; Maarten J IJzerman; A Brett Hauber; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Development and preliminary user testing of the DCIDA (Dynamic computer interactive decision application) for 'nudging' patients towards high quality decisions.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Linda C Li; Larry Lynd; Stirling Bryan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 10.  Prevalence of psychotic disorders and its association with methodological issues. A systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Berta Moreno-Küstner; Carlos Martín; Loly Pastor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Simplifying Complex Models while Maintaining Patient Health Outcomes.

Authors:  Christopher Weyant; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-08-20       Impact factor: 2.749

2.  Partial Personalization of Medical Treatment Decisions: Adverse Effects and Possible Solutions.

Authors:  Christopher Weyant; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Focus on disability-free life expectancy: implications for health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ashley E Galvin; Daniela B Friedman; James R Hébert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 4.147

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.