Literature DB >> 7707625

Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team.

R F Nease1, T Kneeland, G T O'Connor, W Sumner, C Lumpkins, L Shaw, D Pryor, H C Sox.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although practice guidelines sometimes make recommendations based on symptom severity, they rarely account for how patients feel about their symptoms. To investigate the possible importance of patient preferences in treatment of ischemic heart disease, we assessed attitudes toward symptoms in patients with angina pectoris.
DESIGN: Case series.
SETTING: Ambulatory cardiology clinics at two tertiary care medical centers. PATIENTS: A total of 220 subjects were selected from 589 patients with chronic stable angina referred from cardiologists to achieve patients samples balanced for sex, race, and angina severity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured patients' attitudes toward their angina using the rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble utility metrics. Reliability of measurements was evaluated by repeating the assessments 2 weeks later on 50 willing patients.
RESULTS: While the mean responses followed the expected patterns (those with more severe Canadian Cardiovascular Society scores chose lower utilities), attitudes toward symptoms varied substantially among patients with similarly severe angina. For example, there was a 33% chance that a patient with class II angina had a time trade-off utility that was lower (ie, more bothered by symptoms) than a patient with more severe angina (class III/IV). This variation in utilities was not due to random error in the assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: Angina patients with similar functional limitation vary considerably in their tolerance for their symptoms, as measured by utilities. Our findings suggest that guidelines for the management of ischemic heart disease should be based on the preferences of the individual patient rather than on symptom severity alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7707625

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  64 in total

1.  Patient preferences and utilities for 'off-time' outcomes in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  C S Palmer; J K Schmier; E Snyder; B Scott
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

Authors:  C Green; J Brazier; M Deverill
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

4.  Perceptions of benefit and risk of patients undergoing first-time elective percutaneous coronary revascularization.

Authors:  E S Holmboe; D A Fiellin; E Cusanelli; M Remetz; H M Krumholz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Quality of life related to fear of falling and hip fracture in older women: a time trade off study.

Authors:  G Salkeld; I D Cameron; R G Cumming; S Easter; J Seymour; S E Kurrle; S Quine
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-05

6.  The role of public opinion in drug resource allocation decisions.

Authors:  C A Melfi; B G Drake; W M Tierney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Validity of standard gamble utilities in patients referred for aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Amjad I Hussain; Andrew M Garratt; Jan Otto Beitnes; Lars Gullestad; Kjell I Pettersen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  The variability of patient preferences.

Authors:  Joseph Bernstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Health values of patients coinfected with HIV/hepatitis C: are two viruses worse than one?

Authors:  Joseph M Mrus; Kenneth E Sherman; Anthony C Leonard; Susan N Sherman; Karen L Mandell; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Cost-effectiveness of screening for coronary artery disease in asymptomatic patients with Type 2 diabetes and additional atherogenic risk factors.

Authors:  Yasuaki Hayashino; Sizuko Nagata-Kobayashi; Takeshi Morimoto; Kenji Maeda; Takuro Shimbo; Tsuguya Fukui
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.