Author
Listed:
- Ola Caster
- G. Niklas Norén
- Love Ekenberg
- I. Ralph Edwards
- Bettina Bisig
- Juan Moreira
- Mattieu Combes
- Anita Asiimwe
- Zeno Bisoffi
- Frank Haegeman
- Emmanuel Bottieau
- Jef Van den Ende
Abstract
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 three 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.
Suggested Citation
Ola Caster & G. Niklas Norén & Love Ekenberg & I. Ralph Edwards & Bettina Bisig & Juan Moreira & Mattieu Combes & Anita Asiimwe & Zeno Bisoffi & Frank Haegeman & Emmanuel Bottieau & Jef Van den Ende, 2012.
"Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment Using Only Qualitative Information on Utilities,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 749-749, November.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:6:p:749-749
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12469018
Download full text from publisher
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:32:y:2012:i:6:p:749-749. 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.