IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i3p239-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support

Author

Listed:
  • Sung Eun Choi

    (Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Seth A. Berkowitz

    (Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA)

  • John S. Yudkin

    (University College London, London, UK)

  • Huseyin Naci

    (London School of Economics, London, UK)

  • Sanjay Basu

    (Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research and Center for Population Health Sciences, Departments of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
    Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, UK)

Abstract

Background. Personalizing medical treatment often requires practitioners to compare multiple treatment options, assess a patient’s unique risk and benefit from each option, and elicit a patient’s preferences around treatment. We integrated these 3 considerations into a decision-modeling framework for the selection of second-line glycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes. Methods. Based on multicriteria decision analysis, we developed a unified treatment decision support tool accounting for 3 factors: patient preferences, disease outcomes, and medication efficacy and safety profiles. By standardizing and multiplying these 3 factors, we calculated the ranking score for each medication. This approach was applied to determining second-line glycemic therapy by integrating 1) treatment efficacy and side-effect data from a network meta-analysis of 301 randomized trials ( N = 219,277), 2) validated risk equations for type 2 diabetes complications, and 3) patient preferences around treatment (e.g., to avoid daily glucose testing). Data from participants with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003–2014, N = 1107) were used to explore variations in treatment recommendations and associated quality-adjusted life-years given different patient features. Results. Patients at the highest microvascular disease risk had glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists or basal insulin recommended as top choices, whereas those wanting to avoid an injected medication or daily glucose testing had sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors commonly recommended, and those with major cost concerns had sulfonylureas commonly recommended. By converting from the most common sulfonylurea treatment to the model-recommended treatment, NHANES participants were expected to save an average of 0.036 quality-adjusted life-years per person (about a half month) from 10 years of treatment. Conclusions. Models can help integrate meta-analytic treatment effect estimates with individualized risk calculations and preferences, to aid personalized treatment selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Sung Eun Choi & Seth A. Berkowitz & John S. Yudkin & Huseyin Naci & Sanjay Basu, 2019. "Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 239-252, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:239-252
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19829735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19829735
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19829735?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    3. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    4. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    5. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    7. Patricia Kenny & Stephen Goodall & Deborah J. Street & Jessica Greene, 2017. "Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 739-751, December.
    8. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    9. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    10. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    12. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    13. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    14. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    15. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    16. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    17. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    18. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    19. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    20. Jason Madan & Meghan Bruce Kumar & Miriam Taegtmeyer & Edwine Barasa & Swaran Preet Singh, 2020. "SEEP-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-12, September.

    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:39:y:2019:i:3:p:239-252. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.