General Population vs. Patient Preferences in Anticoagulant Therapy: A Discrete Choice Experiment
Tóm tắt
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. 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. 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. 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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139–51.
Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):981–92.
Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(10):883–91.
Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Patrick AR, Choudhry NK, Avorn J. Comparative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(4):480–6.
Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9921):955–62.
Prins MH, Marrel A, Carita P, et al. Multinational development of a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction with anticoagulant treatment: the ‘Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire’ (PACT-Q). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7(1):9.
Mott DJ, Najafzadeh M. Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decision-making? A case study using anticoagulant therapy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(1):33–9.
Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001;323(7323):1218–22.
Choudhry NK, Anderson GM, Laupacis A, Ross-Degnan D, Normand S-LT, Soumerai SB. Impact of adverse events on prescribing warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: matched pair analysis. BMJ. 2006;332(7534):141–5.
Kaufman DW, Kelly JP, Rohay JM, Malone MK, Weinstein RB, Shiffman S. Prevalence and correlates of exceeding the labeled maximum dose of acetaminophen among adults in a U.S.-based internet survey. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(12):1280–8.
Najafzadeh M, Gagne JJ, Choudhry NK, Polinski JM, Avorn J, Schneeweiss SS. Patients’ preferences in anticoagulant therapy: discrete choice experiment. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(6):912–9.
Stango V, Zinman J. What do consumers really pay on their checking and credit card accounts? Explicit, implicit, and avoidable costs. Am Econ Rev. 2009;99(2):424–9.
Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.
Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(22):1505–11.
Fischhoff B. Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence based user’s guide. Silver Spring: Government Printing Office; 2012.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.
Louviere JJ, Islam T, Wasi N, Street D, Burgess L. Designing discrete choice experiments: do optimal designs come at a price? J Consum Res. 2008;35(2):360–75.
McFadden D. Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. J Bus. 1980;53(3):S13–29.
Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Mansfield C, Hass S, Siegel CA, Sands BE. Are adult patients more tolerant of treatment risks than parents of juvenile patients? Risk Anal. 2009;29(1):121–36.
Van Houtven G, Johnson FR, Kilambi V, Hauber AB. Eliciting benefit-risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):469–80.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 2006;15(8):797–811.
Stolker JM, Spertus JA, Cohen DJ, et al. Re-thinking composite endpoints in clinical trials: insights from patients and trialists. Circulation. 2014;130(15):1254.
Zhang G, Parikh PB, Zabihi S, Brown DL. Rating the preferences for potential harms of treatments for cardiovascular disease: a survey of community-dwelling adults. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(4):502–9.
Andersson F, Lyttkens CH. Preferences for equity in health behind a veil of ignorance. Health Econ. 1999;8(5):369–78.
Okumura K, Inoue H, Yasaka M, et al. Comparing patient and physician risk tolerance for bleeding events associated with anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: evidence from the United States and Japan. Value Health Reg Issues. 2015;6:65–72.
Chang HJ, Bell JR, Deroo DB, Kirk JW, Wasson JH. Physician variation in anticoagulating patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150(1):83–6.
Wilke T, Bauer S, Mueller S, Kohlmann T, Bauersachs R. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review. Patient. 2017;10(1):17–37.
MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl.):e1S–23S.
Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.
Tong BC, Huber JC, Ascheim DD, et al. Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(6):1908–13.
Bryan S, Jowett S. Hypothetical versus real preferences: results from an opportunistic field experiment. Health Econ. 2010;19(12):1502–9.
Tervonen T, Ustyugova A, Bhashyam SS, et al. Comparison of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a multicriteria decision analysis. Value Health. 2017;20(10):1394–402.