Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decision-making? A case study using anticoagulant therapy

References

• Papers of special note have been highlighted as:
   Google Scholar
• * of interest
   Google Scholar
• ** of considerable interest
   Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(2):151–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weernink MGM, Janus SIM, van Til JA, et al. A systematic review to identify the use of preference elicitation methods in healthcare decision making. Pharmaceut Med. 2014;28(4):175–185.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, et al. Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5):610–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–208.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dolan P. Whose preferences count? Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4):482–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(9):705–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najafzadeh M, Schneeweiss S, Choudhry N, et al. A unified framework for classification of methods for benefit-risk assessment. Value Health. 2015;18(2):250–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, et al. A review of quantitative risk–benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy—report of the ISPOR risk–benefit management working group. Value Health. 2010;13(5):657–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holden WL, Juhaeri J, Dai W. Benefit–risk analysis: examples using quantitative methods. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12(8):693–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAteer A, Yi D, Watson V, et al. Exploring preferences for symptom management in primary care: a discrete choice experiment using a questionnaire survey. Br J Gen Pract. 2015. DOI:10.3399/bjgp15X685705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bekker-Grob EW, Niers EJ, van Lanschot JJB, et al. Patients’ preferences for surgical management of esophageal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. World J Surg. 2015. DOI:10.1007/s00268-015-3148-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Yi D, Avenell A, et al. Gaining pounds by losing pounds: preferences for lifestyle interventions to reduce obesity. Health Econ Policy Law. 2015;10(2):161–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salampessy BH, Veldwijk J, Jantine Schuit A, et al. The predictive value of discrete choice experiments in public health: an exploratory application. Patient. 2015. DOI:10.1007/s40271-015-0115-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brett Hauber A, Fairchild AO, Reed Johnson F. Quantifying benefit–risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Investigating patients’ preferences for different treatment options. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):45–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansell J, Hirsh J, Poller L, et al. The pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: the seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest. 2004;126(3 Suppl):204S–233S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogilvie IM, Newton N, Welner SA, et al. Underuse of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Am J Med. 2010;123(7):638–645.e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galanis T, Thomson L, Palladino M, et al. New oral anticoagulants. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011;31(3):310–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proietti M, Lip GY. Antidotes to non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants: necessary or not? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(11):1573–1576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack CV, Reilly PA, Eikelboom J, et al. Idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):511–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zolfaghari S, Harenberg J, Froelich L, et al. Development of a tool to identify patients’ preference for vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant therapy. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2014;40(1):121–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 suppl):e1S–e23S.
   Google Scholar
• Dranitsaris G, Stumpo C, Smith R, et al. Extended dalteparin prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic events. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2012;9(1):44–58.
   Google Scholar
• Protheroe J, Fahey T, Montgomery AA, et al. The impact of patients’ preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. BMJ. 2000;320(7246):1380–1384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK. The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(16):1829–1836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Albers GW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of warfarin and aspirin for prophylaxis of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. JAMA. 1995;274(23):1839–1845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness of preference-based antithrombotic therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 1998;29(6):1083–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locadia M, Bossuyt PMM, Stalmeier PFM, et al. Treatment of venous thromboembolism with vitamin K antagonists: patients’ health state valuations and treatment preferences. Thromb Haemost. 2004;92(6):1336–1341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson R, Parkin D, Eccles M, et al. Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet. 2000;355(9208):956–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Meara JJ, McNutt RA, Evans AT, et al. A decision analysis of streptokinase plus heparin as compared with heparin alone for deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(26):1864–1869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso-Coello P, Montori VM, Solà I, et al. Values and preferences in oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation, physicians’ and patients’ perspectives: protocol for a two-phase study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devereaux PJ, Fahey T, Anderson DR, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ. 2001;323(7323):1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howitt A, Armstrong D. Implementing evidence based medicine in general practice: audit and qualitative study of antithrombotic treatment for atrial fibrillation. BMJ. 1999;318(7194):1324–1327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Man-Son-Hing M. The efficacy of warfarin for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Measuring its minimal clinically important difference from the patients’ perspective [ Master’s thesis]. Ottawa: University of Ottawa; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Moia M, Mantovani LG, Carpenedo M, et al. Patient preferences and willingness to pay for different options of anticoagulant therapy. Intern Emerg Med. 2013;8(3):237–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najafzadeh M, Gagne JJ, Choudhry NK, et al. Patients’ preferences in anticoagulant therapy discrete choice experiment. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(6):912–919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghijben P, Lancsar E, Zavarsek S. Preferences for oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a best–best discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(11):1115–1127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Legislating against use of cost-effectiveness information. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(16):1495–1497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor DRS, Hutton J, Culyer AJ. Developing the Revised NICE appraisal technical guidance to manufacturers and sponsors. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(15):1031–1038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost–effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;26(9):769–779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015. DOI:10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Patient preference information – submission, review in PMAs, HDE applications, and De Novo requests, and inclusion in Device Labeling [Draft]. FDA [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 13]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM446680.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European Consortium (PROTECT). Recommendations for the methodology and visualisation techniques to be used in the assessment of benefit and risk of medicines. PROTECT [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Aug 13]. Available from: http://www.imi-protect.eu/documents/HughesetalRecommendationsforthemethodologyandvisualisationtechniquestobeusedintheassessmento.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brouwer WBF, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJA, et al. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008;27(2):325–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King G. A solution to the ecological inference problem: reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Alonso-Coello P, Montori VM, Díaz MG, et al. Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives. Health Expect. 2014. DOI:10.1111/hex.12201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najafzadeh M, Johnston KM, Peacock SJ, et al. Genomic testing to determine drug response: measuring preferences of the public and patients using Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):591–597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar