IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i2p222-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Medical Decision Making with Incomplete Evidence—Choosing a Platelet Glycoprotein IIbIIIa Receptor Inhibitor for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Author

Listed:
  • James M. Brophy

    (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, james.brophy@mcgill.ca)

  • Lawrence Joseph

    (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec)

Abstract

Background . Medical decision making must often be performed despite incomplete evidence. An example is the choice of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GP2b3a) inhibitor, a class of potent antiplatelet medications, as adjunctive therapy during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). GP2b3a inhibitor efficacy in reducing adverse outcomes has been well documented with multiple placebo-controlled randomized trials, but there is a paucity of comparative data about their individual equivalency. Substantial cost differentials are also present between the drugs. Methods . A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify all randomized placebo-controlled trials of GP2b3a inhibitors as adjunctive therapy for PCI. Three complimentary methods were used to assist in decision making regarding drug equivalency. First, the data from the single direct comparative trial are analyzed from a Bayesian perspective. Next, prior information from other GP2b3a inhibitor trials in similar but not identical patient populations is incorporated. In the 3rd method, indirect comparisons of GP2b3a inhibitors are carried out using a hierarchical meta-analytic model of the placebo-controlled trials identified by the systematic review. Results . A total of 12 randomized trials were identified involving 3 agents (abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban), but only 1 involved a direct comparison of 2 drugs (abciximab v. tirofiban). In contradiction to the original publication, the authors’ Bayesian analysis both without (method 1) and with (method 2) the inclusion of some prior information suggests a reasonable probability of equivalency. The indirect comparisons from all randomized placebo-controlled trials (method 3) also failed to provide support for superiority of any agent over the others. Conclusion . Decision making with incomplete evidence is a difficult but frequently occurring medical dilemma. The authors propose 3 methods that may elucidate the process and illustrate them in the context of the choice of GP2b3a inhibitor for adjunctive therapy during PCI. Further data may or may not eventually lead to a different conclusion, but based on the evidence available to date, the authors’ 3 methods suggest clinical equivalency between GP2b3a inhibitors, in contrast to the initial conclusions from the single comparative randomized trial.

Suggested Citation

  • James M. Brophy & Lawrence Joseph, 2005. "Medical Decision Making with Incomplete Evidence—Choosing a Platelet Glycoprotein IIbIIIa Receptor Inhibitor for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(2), pages 222-228, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:2:p:222-228
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05275156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05275156
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05275156?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:2:p:222-228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.