Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment Using Only Qualitative Information on Utilities

被引:10
作者
Caster, Ola [1 ,2 ]
Noren, G. Niklas [1 ,3 ]
Ekenberg, Love [2 ]
Edwards, I. Ralph [1 ]
机构
[1] Uppsala Monitoring Ctr, World Hlth Org Collaborating Ctr Int Drug Monitor, S-75140 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Stockholm Univ, Dept Comp & Syst Sci, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Stockholm Univ, Dept Math, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
benefit-risk; risk-benefit; comparative effectiveness; probabilistic; simulation; Monte Carlo; decision analysis; decision-analytical; quality-adjusted life years; utility modeling; alosetron; MCV4; vaccination; terfenadine; chlorpheniramine; DECISION-ANALYSIS; HEALTH OUTCOMES; MODEL; ALOSETRON; PROFILES; EFFICACY; SAFETY; STATES; TIME;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X12451338
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Utilities of pertinent clinical outcomes are crucial variables for assessing the benefits and risks of drugs, but numerical data on utilities may be unreliable or altogether missing. We propose a method to incorporate qualitative information into a probabilistic decision analysis framework for quantitative benefit-risk assessment. Objective: To investigate whether conclusive results can be obtained when the only source of discriminating information on utilities is widely agreed upon qualitative relations, for example, ''sepsis is worse than transient headache'' or ''alleviation of disease is better without than with complications.'' Method: We used the structure and probabilities of 3 published models that were originally evaluated based on the standard metric of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs): terfenadine versus chlorpheniramine for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, MCV4 vaccination against meningococcal disease, and alosetron for irritable bowel syndrome. For each model, we identified clinically straightforward qualitative relations among the outcomes. Using Monte Carlo simulations, the resulting utility distributions were then combined with the previously specified probabilities, and the rate of preference in terms of expected utility was determined for each alternative. Results: Our approach conclusively favored MCV4 vaccination, and it was concordant with the QALY assessments for the MCV4 and terfenadine versus chlorpheniramine case studies. For alosetron, we found a possible unfavorable benefit-risk balance for highly risk-averse patients not identified in the original analysis. Conclusion: Incorporation of widely agreed upon qualitative information into quantitative benefit-risk assessment can provide for conclusive results. The methods presented should prove useful in both population and individual-level assessments, especially when numerical utility data are missing or unreliable, and constraints on time or money preclude its collection.
引用
收藏
页码:E1 / E15
页数:15
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], COST EFF AN REG
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1972, Foundations of Statistics
  • [3] Berger J.O., 1985, Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis, V2nd
  • [4] Pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology - Curious bedfellows or a match made in heaven?
    Briggs, Andrew H.
    Levy, Adrian R.
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2006, 24 (11) : 1079 - 1086
  • [5] Caster O, 2012, LECT NOTES EC MATH S, P67
  • [6] MCV vaccination in the presence of vaccine-associated Guillain-Barre, Syndrome risk: A decision analysis approach
    Cho, Bo-Hyun
    Clark, Thomas A.
    Messonnier, Nancy E.
    Ortega-Sanchez, Ismael R.
    Weintraub, Eric
    Messonnier, Mark L.
    [J]. VACCINE, 2010, 28 (03) : 817 - 822
  • [7] Devroye L., 1986, NONUNIFORM RANDOM VA
  • [8] Doubilet P, 1985, Med Decis Making, V5, P157, DOI 10.1177/0272989X8500500205
  • [9] European Medicines Agency (EMA), BEN RISK METH PROJ W
  • [10] A Multiattribute Model for Evaluating the Benefit-Risk Profiles of Treatment Alternatives
    Felli, James C.
    Noel, Rebecca A.
    Cavazzoni, Patrizia A.
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2009, 29 (01) : 104 - 115