Multiple sclerosis patients—benefit-risk preferences: Serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy
- 765 Downloads
The aim of this study is to estimate the willingness of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients to accept life-threatening adverse event risks in exchange for improvements in their MS related health outcomes.
MS patients completed a survey questionnaire that included a series of choice-format conjoint tradeoff tasks. Patients chose hypothetical treatments from pairs of treatment alternatives with varying levels of clinical efficacy and associated risks.
Among the 651 patients who completed the survey, delay in years to disability progression was the most important factor in treatment preferences. In return for decreases in relapse rates from 4 to 1 and increases in delay in progression from 3 to 5 years, patients were willing to accept a 0.38% annual risk of death or disability from PML, a 0.39% annual risk of death from liver failure or a 0.48% annual risk of death from leukemia.
Medical interventions carry risks of adverse outcomes that must be evaluated against their clinical benefits. Most MS patients indicated they are willing to accept risks in exchange for clinical efficacy. Patient preferences for potential benefits and risks can assist in decision-making.
Key wordsconjoint analysis benefit-risk analysis side-effect risk multiple sclerosis maximum acceptable risk
- 1.Andrews CJ (2005) Lessons from the New Jersey Comparative Risk Project. In: Linkov I, Ramadan AB (eds) Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Netherlands: SpringerGoogle Scholar
- 4.Calfee, John E (2006) A representative survey of M.S. patients on attitudes toward the benefits and risks of drug therapy. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. Related Publication 06–07 (March)Google Scholar
- 8.European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) (2007) Report of the CHMP Working Group on Benefit-Risk Assessment Models and Methods (January)Google Scholar
- 9.Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- 13.Gregory R, Mendelsohn R (1993) Perceived risk, dread, and benefits risk Analysis 13(3):259–264Google Scholar
- 14.Health Talk (2006) Available at: www.healthtalk.com. Last accessed 4/26/2006Google Scholar
- 15.Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- 18.Institute of Medicine Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System(2006) The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public. In: Alina Baciu, Kathleen Stratton, Sheila P. Burke (eds) National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 29.Mendeloff J (1995) Decision Analysis and FDA Drug Review: A Proposal for Shadow Advisory Committees. Risk (Summer):203–214Google Scholar
- 35.Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 36.Train K, Sonnier G (2005) Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A (eds) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics. Springer Publisher, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- 37.Yousry TA, Habil DM, Major EO, Ryschkewitsch C, Fahle G, Fischer S, Hou J, Curfman B, Miszkiel K, Mueller-Lenke N, Sanchez E, Barkhof F, Radue EW, Jager HR, Clifford DB (2006) Evaluation of patients treated with natalizumab for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med 354:924–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W (1996) A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Durham: Fuqua School of Business, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar