IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i3d10.1007_s40271-017-0295-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis

Author

Listed:
  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez

    (Duke University, Duke Clinical Research Institute)

Abstract

Background Stated-preference methods have been widely used to evaluate patient-relative preferences for the benefits and potential harms of psoriasis treatments. However, risk tolerance measures for treatment-related harms, a corollary of preferences, are rare despite their critical role in shared decision making and regulatory benefit-risk evaluations. This article presents a method to enhance information on patient risk tolerance through previously published preference results. Objective The objective of this article was to conduct the first meta-analysis of preferences to characterize the distribution of patients’ maximum acceptable risk of harms associated with psoriasis treatments. Data Sources Maximum acceptable risks for treatment-related adverse events were extracted or derived from preference results published between 2011 and 2017. Synthesis Methods Four different analyses were conducted to evaluate maximum acceptable risk information across studies: (1) listing of maximum acceptable risk values, (2) naïve aggregation of maximum acceptable risks, (3) estimation of maximum acceptable risk mother distribution, and (4) random-effect regression analysis of maximum acceptable risks. Results Nine publications with maximum acceptable risk results, or with enough information to derive maximum acceptable risks, were identified from the search and screening of preference studies. The most commonly evaluated treatment benefits were duration of benefits, percentage and probability of improvement, and reductions in the coverage of lesions. The adverse-event risks most often included in the publications were those commonly associated with biologics, such as serious infections and malignancies. As expected, maximum acceptable risks changed with treatment benefits and treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions The results confirm the feasibility of using previously published preference information to characterize patient risk tolerance. The estimated distributions of maximum acceptable risk provide a benchmark against which future results can be compared, and signal gaps in our understanding of risk tolerance for specific health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez, 2018. "Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 285-300, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0295-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0295-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0295-z
    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/s40271-017-0295-z?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. Aleksandra Torbica & Giovanni Fattore & Fabio Ayala, 2014. "Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 209-223, February.
    2. William H. Desvousges & F. R. Johnson & H. S. Banzhaf, 1998. "Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1328.
    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. Sébastien Dessus & David O'Connor, 2003. "Climate Policy without Tears CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 287-317, July.
    2. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka & Hiroaki Shirakawa, 2004. "Meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies on air pollution-related morbidity risks," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(1), pages 11-47, March.
    3. Ngugi, Daniel & Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Bergstrom, John C., 2008. "Land Use Change and Ecosystem Valuation in North Georgia," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6119, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Shuang Liu & David I Stern, 2008. "A Meta-Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies in Coastal and Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-15, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    5. Jon Nelson & Peter Kennedy, 2009. "The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 345-377, March.
    6. Marangon, Francesco & Visintin, Francesca, 2007. "Rural landscape valuation in a cross-border region," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 84.
    7. Zhai, Guofang & Suzuki, Takeshi, 2008. "Public willingness to pay for environmental management, risk reduction and economic development: Evidence from Tianjin, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 551-566, December.
    8. Charles W. Griffiths & Chris Dockins & Nicole Owens & Nathalie B. Simon & Daniel A. Axelrad, 2002. "What to Do at Low Doses: A Bounding Approach for Economic Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 679-688, August.
    9. Iovanna, Richard & Griffiths, Charles, 2006. "Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits transfer: A work in progress at the U.S. EPA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 473-482, December.
    10. Spencer Banzhaf, H. & Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen, 2004. "Efficient emission fees in the US electricity sector," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-341, September.
    11. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B., 2000. "Panel Stratification In Meta-Analysis Of Economic Studies: An Investigation Of Its Effects In The Recreation Valuation Literature," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Burtraw, Dallas & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & McGuinness, Meghan, 2001. "Uncertainty and the Cost-Effectiveness of Regional NOx Emissions Reductions from Electricity Generation," Discussion Papers 10846, Resources for the Future.
    13. Tuan, Tran Hu & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2008. "Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia & Oceania: Data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues," MPRA Paper 11470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147.
    15. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2007. "What Determines Prediction Errors In "Benefits Transfer" Models?," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7967, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Jakus, Paul M. & McGuinness, Meghan & Krupnick, Alan J., 2002. "The Benefits and Costs of Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury," Discussion Papers 10853, Resources for the Future.
    17. Kiyoko Hagihara & Chisato Asahi & Yoshimi Hagihara, 2004. "Marginal Willingness to Pay for Public Investment under Urban Environmental Risk: The Case of Municipal Water Use," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 22(3), pages 349-362, June.
    18. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    19. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    20. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2015. "Research Synthesis and the Value per Statistical Life," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1086-1100, June.

    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:11:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0295-z. 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.