Patient-physician discordance about benefits and risks in gastroenterology decision-making

Physician-Specific Maximum Acceptable Risk in Personalized Medicine: Implications for Medical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

In discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), respondents are presented with a series of scenarios and asked to select their preferred choice. In clinical decision making, DCEs allow one to calculate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) that a respondent is willing to accept for a one-unit increase in treatment efficacy. Most published studies report the average MAR for the whole sample, without conveying any information about heterogeneity. For a sample of psychiatrists prescribing drugs for a series of hypothetical patients with schizophrenia, this article demonstrates how heterogeneity accounted for in the DCE modeling can be incorporated in the derivation of the MAR.

METHODS

Psychiatrists were given information about a group of patients' responses to treatment on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the weight gain associated with the treatment observed in a series of 26 vignettes. We estimated a random parameters logit (RPL) model with treatment choice as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

Results from the RPL were used to compute the MAR for the overall sample. This was found to be equal to 4%, implying that, overall, psychiatrists were willing to accept a 4% increase in the risk of an adverse event to obtain a one-unit improvement of symptoms - measured on the PANSS. Heterogeneity was then incorporated in the MAR calculation, finding that MARs ranged between 0.5 and 9.5 across the sample of psychiatrists.

LIMITATIONS

We provided psychiatrists with hypothetical scenarios, and their MAR may change when making decisions for actual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis aimed to show how it is possible to calculate physician-specific MARs and to discuss how MAR heterogeneity could have implications for medical practice.

Optimal threshold estimator of a prognostic marker by maximizing a time-dependent expected utility function for a patient-centered stratified medicine

Defining thresholds of prognostic markers is essential for stratified medicine. Such thresholds are mostly estimated from purely statistical measures regardless of patient preferences potentially leading to unacceptable medical decisions. Quality-Adjusted Life-Years are a widely used preferences-based measure of health outcomes. We develop a time-dependent Quality-Adjusted Life-Years-based expected utility function for censored data that should be maximized to estimate an optimal threshold. We performed a simulation study to compare estimated thresholds when using the proposed expected utility approach and purely statistical estimators. Two applications illustrate the usefulness of the proposed methodology which was implemented in the R package ROCt ( www.divat.fr ). First, by reanalysing data of a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of prednisone vs. placebo in patients with chronic liver cirrhosis, we demonstrate the utility of treating patients with a prothrombin level higher than 89%. Second, we reanalyze the data of an observational cohort of kidney transplant recipients: we conclude to the uselessness of the Kidney Transplant Failure Score to adapt the frequency of clinical visits. Applying such a patient-centered methodology may improve future transfer of novel prognostic scoring systems or markers in clinical practice.

The clinical decision analysis using decision tree

The clinical decision analysis (CDA) has used to overcome complexity and uncertainty in medical problems. The CDA is a tool allowing decision-makers to apply evidence-based medicine to make objective clinical decisions when faced with complex situations. The usefulness and limitation including six steps in conducting CDA were reviewed. The application of CDA results should be done under shared decision with patients' value.

Relative importance of benefits and risks associated with antithrombotic therapies for acute coronary syndrome: patient and physician perspectives

BACKGROUND

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS), antithrombotic therapies prevent thrombotic events, but also increase bleeding risk. Knowledge is limited about how patients and physicians balance these benefits and risks.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify US patient and physician preferences for outcomes associated with antithrombotic therapies in ACS.

METHODS

Two independent web-based surveys were conducted using best-worst scaling in board-certified cardiologists and adult patients hospitalized within the last 5 years due to heart attack and who used aspirin or prescription antithrombotic therapies. Participants selected best and worst of three possible outcomes across a series of questions. Outcomes included death, various levels of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and bleeding. Data were analyzed using a maximum difference model employing random-parameters logit. Relative importance of each outcome was estimated relative to death.

FINDINGS

Patients (n = 206) and physicians (n = 273) who met face validity requirements, viewed death and nonfatal major disabling stroke as nearly equivalent and most important outcomes to avoid. Relative to death and disabling stroke, physicians considered nondisabling stroke, all nonfatal bleeding, and mild MI all as least important to avoid, while patients considered all bleeds, except major bleeding requiring transfusion, as least important to avoid. Physicians considered severe MI equivalent to 0.92 (0.02 SE) deaths. Patients (∼0.35 [0.04] deaths) and physicians (∼0.64 [0.05] deaths) had different views for nonfatal moderate stroke. Patients viewed nonfatal major bleeding requiring transfusion ∼0.13 (0.02) deaths, and nonfatal heart attack ∼0.09 (0.02) deaths.

CONCLUSION

US patients and physicians agree on the relative importance of avoiding death, disabling stroke and bleeding without transfusions. Differing perspectives on bleeding requiring transfusions, MI, and moderately disabling stroke suggest that patients and physicians may have different benefit-risk preferences. Transparent discussion between physicians and patients in ACS treatment shared decision-making seems warranted, although limitations of survey methodology and cultural differences compared with US participants should be considered.

Personal view: passing the buck and taking a free ride -- a game-theoretical approach to evasive management strategies in gastroenterology

BACKGROUND

'Free-riding' physicians enjoy the status, prestige and income of their profession without fully contributing to its overall mission. By shifting the costs of potential medical complications and difficult patient encounters to other physicians, they reap the benefits of their profession without carrying its full weight.

AIM

To describe this phenomenon in terms of decision analysis and characterize the parameters affecting its occurrence.

METHODS

The interaction between two physicians is modeled as a non-zero-sum game. Two strategies of either contributing to patient management or taking a free ride are available to both physicians. The four possible outcomes are arranged in a two-by-two game matrix.

RESULTS

Physicians practice medicine because their personal benefit exceeds their cost. High cost to the physician results in a high probability of taking a free ride and copping out from potentially risky management. Increasing the benefit decreases the probability of free riding. As the number of possible encounters with other physicians increases, the probability of free riding increases and the probability for effective management by each individual physician decreases.

CONCLUSION

If individual gastroenterologists felt less threatened by administrative repercussions and medico-legal consequences of untoward events, each one of them would contribute more to effective patient management.