IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i2d10.1007_s40271-021-00548-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Cathy Anne Pinto

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Gin Nie Chua

    (Evidera)

  • John F. P. Bridges

    (The Ohio State University College of Medicine)

  • Ella Brookes

    (Evidera)

  • Johanna Hyacinthe

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Tommi Tervonen

    (Evidera
    University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen)

Abstract

Background Antithrombotic drugs are used as preventive treatment in patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) in both the acute and chronic phases of the disease. To support patient-centered benefit–risk assessment, it is important to understand the influence of disease stage on patient preferences. Objective The aim of this study was to examine patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments and whether they differ by MI disease phase. Methods A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit preferences of adults in the acute (≤ 365 days before enrolment) or chronic phase (> 365 days before enrolment) of MI for key ischemic events (risk of cardiovascular [CV] death, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal ischemic stroke) and bleeding events (risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage and non-fatal other severe bleeding). Preference data were analyzed using the multinomial logit model. Trade-offs between attributes were calculated as the maximum acceptable increase in the risk of CV death for a decrease in the risk of the other outcomes. To assess the potential effect of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on patient preferences, subgroups were introduced as interaction terms in logit models. Results The evaluable population included 155 patients with MI in the acute phase of disease and 180 in the chronic phase. The overall population was 82% male, mean age was 64.2 ± 9.6 years, and 93% had not experienced bleeding events or key ischemic events other than MI. Patients valued reduction in the risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage more than CV death (p

Suggested Citation

  • Cathy Anne Pinto & Gin Nie Chua & John F. P. Bridges & Ella Brookes & Johanna Hyacinthe & Tommi Tervonen, 2022. "Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 255-266, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00548-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00548-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00548-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00548-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacob Marschak, 1959. "Binary Choice Constraints on Random Utility Indicators," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 74, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:34-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Teachers’ Knowledge and Preparedness for Retirement: Results from a Nationally Representative Teacher Survey," Working Papers 21-5, Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research, Saint Louis University.
    4. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    5. Vishal Kamat, 2017. "Identifying the Effects of a Program Offer with an Application to Head Start," Papers 1711.02048, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    6. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    7. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    9. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:zbw:rwirep:0070 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Funk, Patrick & Davis, Alex & Vaishnav, Parth & Dewitt, Barry & Fuchs, Erica, 2020. "Individual inconsistency and aggregate rationality: Overcoming inconsistencies in expert judgment at the technical frontier," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:152-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    16. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    17. Thorp, S. & Bateman, H. & Dobrescu, L.I. & Newell, B.R. & Ortmann, A., 2020. "Flicking the switch: Simplifying disclosure to improve retirement plan choices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    18. Emerson Melo, 2021. "Learning in Random Utility Models Via Online Decision Problems," Papers 2112.10993, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2022.
    19. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    21. Andor, Mark Andreas & Bauer, Thomas K. & Eßer, Jana & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Tomberg, Lukas, 2023. "Who gets vaccinated? Cognitive and non-cognitive predictors of individual behavior in pandemics," Ruhr Economic Papers 993, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    22. Regenwetter, Michel & Marley, A. A. J. & Grofman, Bernard, 2002. "A general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 405-428, July.
    23. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    24. Jean-Sébastien Lenfant, 2018. "Probabilising the consumer: Georgescu-Roegen, Marschak and Quandt on the modelling of the consumer in the 1950s," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 36-72, January.
    25. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00548-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.