Literature DB >> 34027738

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

Christopher Weyant1, Margaret L Brandeau1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Personalizing medical treatment decisions based on patient-specific risks and/or preferences can improve health outcomes. Decision makers frequently select treatments based on partial personalization (e.g., personalization based on risks but not preferences or vice versa) due to a lack of data about patient-specific risks and preferences. However, partially personalizing treatment decisions based on a subset of patient risks and/or preferences can result in worse population-level health outcomes than no personalization and can increase the variance of population-level health outcomes.
METHODS: We develop a new method for partially personalizing treatment decisions that avoids these problems. Using a case study of antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia, as well as 4 additional illustrative examples, we demonstrate the adverse effects and our method for avoiding them.
RESULTS: For the schizophrenia treatment case study, using a previously proposed modeling approach for personalizing treatment decisions and using only a subset of patient preferences regarding treatment efficacy and side effects, mean population-level health outcomes decreased by 0.04 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% credible interval [crI]: 0.02-0.06) per patient compared with no personalization. Using our new method and considering the same subset of patient preferences, mean population-level health outcomes increased by 0.01 QALYs (95% crI: 0.00-0.03) per patient as compared with no personalization, and the variance decreased. LIMITATIONS: We assumed a linear and additive utility function.
CONCLUSIONS: Selecting personalized treatments for patients should be done in a way that does not decrease expected population-level health outcomes and does not increase their variance, thereby resulting in worse risk-adjusted, population-level health outcomes compared with treatment selection with no personalization. Our method can be used to ensure this, thereby helping patients realize the benefits of treatment personalization without the potential harms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medical decision making; personalized medicine; schizophrenia

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34027738      PMCID: PMC8606611          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211013773

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


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

Authors:  Christopher Weyant; Margaret L Brandeau; Sanjay Basu
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Two approaches to incorporate clinical data uncertainty into multiple criteria decision analysis for benefit-risk assessment of medicinal products.

Authors:  Shihua Wen; Lanju Zhang; Bo Yang
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Doctor-patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment.

Authors:  Matteo M Galizzi; Marisa Miraldo; Charitini Stavropoulou; Marjon van der Pol
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  In Sickness but Not in Wealth: Field Evidence on Patients' Risk Preferences in Financial and Health Domains.

Authors:  Matteo M Galizzi; Marisa Miraldo; Charitini Stavropoulou
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 7.  Comparative efficacy and safety of blood pressure-lowering agents in adults with diabetes and kidney disease: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Suetonia C Palmer; Dimitris Mavridis; Eliano Navarese; Jonathan C Craig; Marcello Tonelli; Georgia Salanti; Natasha Wiebe; Marinella Ruospo; David C Wheeler; Giovanni F M Strippoli
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrea Cipriani; Toshi A Furukawa; Georgia Salanti; Anna Chaimani; Lauren Z Atkinson; Yusuke Ogawa; Stefan Leucht; Henricus G Ruhe; Erick H Turner; Julian P T Higgins; Matthias Egger; Nozomi Takeshima; Yu Hayasaka; Hissei Imai; Kiyomi Shinohara; Aran Tajika; John P A Ioannidis; John R Geddes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  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

10.  Dynamic treatment selection and modification for personalised blood pressure therapy using a Markov decision process model: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Sung Eun Choi; Margaret L Brandeau; Sanjay Basu
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.