Athanasakis, Kostas; Igoumenidis, Michael; Boubouchairopoulou, Nadia; Vitsou, Elli; Kyriopoulos, John
Two Sides of the Same Coin? A Dual Multiple Criteria Decision
Analysis of Novel Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis in
Physicians and Patients Journal Article
In: Clin Ther, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1547–1557, 2021.
@article{Athanasakis2021-je,
title = {Two Sides of the Same Coin? A Dual Multiple Criteria Decision
Analysis of Novel Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis in
Physicians and Patients},
author = {Kostas Athanasakis and Michael Igoumenidis and Nadia Boubouchairopoulou and Elli Vitsou and John Kyriopoulos},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-08-01},
journal = {Clin Ther},
volume = {43},
number = {9},
pages = {1547--1557},
address = {United States},
abstract = {PURPOSE: Available treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis
(RA) differ in important aspects. In this sense, each RA
treatment option is accompanied by a spectrum of characteristics
that collectively constitute its comprehensive ``value,'' as
viewed from the physician's or the patient's perspective. The
objective of this study was to perform a multiple criteria
decision analysis of different RA treatments from the perspective
of physicians and patients and to outline the respective aspects
of value for each treatment METHODS: A literature review was performed for constructing a set of criteria (N = 8) for the
multiple criteria decision analysis. Workshops for the
elicitation of preferences occurred separately for physicians and
patients. A performance matrix was populated via 2 network
meta-analyses plus converged clinical opinion. Criteria were
hierarchically classified by application of pairwise comparisons,
and criteria weights were attributed by point allocation through
convergence of opinions. Performances in both panels were scored
by using a 100-point scale. A linear additive value function was
used for the calculation of total value estimates. FINDINGS: Both
panels provided their consensus. The hierarchical classification
of attributes from the physician perspective placed the highest
values on the criteria of severe adverse events, clinical
efficacy, route of administration, and cost per year for the
third-party payer. From the patient perspective, the highest
ranking criteria were clinical efficacy, severe adverse events,
percentage of patients remaining with the same targeted immune
modulator for 1 year (``drug survival''), and cost per year for
the third-party payer. IMPLICATIONS: In an era of multiple
options and varying preferences, RA treatments must be evaluated
by taking into consideration patients' preferences as well, as to
cover the full spectrum of value elements rather than simply
clinical outcomes. The results of this analysis show that
physicians and patients share similarities but also marked
differences in terms of the aspects of treatment that they
perceive as more valuable.},
keywords = {multiple criteria decision analysis; rheumatoid arthritis; shared decision-making; targeted immune modulators},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
PURPOSE: Available treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis
(RA) differ in important aspects. In this sense, each RA
treatment option is accompanied by a spectrum of characteristics
that collectively constitute its comprehensive ``value,'' as
viewed from the physician's or the patient's perspective. The
objective of this study was to perform a multiple criteria
decision analysis of different RA treatments from the perspective
of physicians and patients and to outline the respective aspects
of value for each treatment METHODS: A literature review was performed for constructing a set of criteria (N = 8) for the
multiple criteria decision analysis. Workshops for the
elicitation of preferences occurred separately for physicians and
patients. A performance matrix was populated via 2 network
meta-analyses plus converged clinical opinion. Criteria were
hierarchically classified by application of pairwise comparisons,
and criteria weights were attributed by point allocation through
convergence of opinions. Performances in both panels were scored
by using a 100-point scale. A linear additive value function was
used for the calculation of total value estimates. FINDINGS: Both
panels provided their consensus. The hierarchical classification
of attributes from the physician perspective placed the highest
values on the criteria of severe adverse events, clinical
efficacy, route of administration, and cost per year for the
third-party payer. From the patient perspective, the highest
ranking criteria were clinical efficacy, severe adverse events,
percentage of patients remaining with the same targeted immune
modulator for 1 year (``drug survival''), and cost per year for
the third-party payer. IMPLICATIONS: In an era of multiple
options and varying preferences, RA treatments must be evaluated
by taking into consideration patients' preferences as well, as to
cover the full spectrum of value elements rather than simply
clinical outcomes. The results of this analysis show that
physicians and patients share similarities but also marked
differences in terms of the aspects of treatment that they
perceive as more valuable.