Dataset Information

Involving Patients in Weighting Benefits and Harms of Treatment in Parkinson's Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Little is known about how patients weigh benefits and harms of available treatments for Parkinson's Disease (oral medication, deep brain stimulation, infusion therapy). In this study we have (1) elicited patient preferences for benefits, side effects and process characteristics of treatments and (2) measured patients' preferred and perceived involvement in decision-making about treatment.

Methods

Preferences were elicited using a best-worst scaling case 2 experiment. Attributes were selected based on 18 patient-interviews: treatment modality, tremor, slowness of movement, posture and balance problems, drowsiness, dizziness, and dyskinesia. Subsequently, a questionnaire was distributed in which patients were asked to indicate the most and least desirable attribute in nine possible treatment scenarios. Conditional logistic analysis and latent class analysis were used to estimate preference weights and identify subgroups. Patients also indicated their preferred and perceived degree of involvement in treatment decision-making (ranging from active to collaborative to passive).

Results

Two preference patterns were found in the patient sample (N = 192). One class of patients focused largely on optimising the process of care, while the other class focused more on controlling motor-symptoms. Patients who had experienced advanced treatments, had a shorter disease duration, or were still employed were more likely to belong to the latter class. For both classes, the benefits of treatment were more influential than the described side effects. Furthermore, many patients (45%) preferred to take the lead in treatment decisions, however 10.8% perceived a more passive or collaborative role instead.

Discussion

Patients weighted the benefits and side effects of treatment differently, indicating there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to choosing treatments. Moreover, many patients preferred an active role in decision-making about treatment. Both results stress the need for physicians to know what is important to patients and to share treatment decisions to ensure that patients receive the treatment that aligns with their preferences.

SUBMITTER: Weernink MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5004993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEvidence to support initiation of pharmacologic treatment in low-risk patients with mild hypertension is inconclusive, with previous trials underpowered to demonstrate benefit. Clinical guidelines across the world are contradictory.ObjectiveTo examine whether antihypertensive treatment is associated with a low risk of mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in low-risk patients with mild hypertension.Design, setting, and participantsIn this longitudinal cohort study, data were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, from January 1, 1998, through September 30, 2015, for patients aged 18 to 74 years who had mild hypertension (untreated blood pressure of 140/90-159/99 mm Hg) and no previous treatment. Anyone with a history of CVD or CVD risk factors was excluded. Patients exited the cohort if follow-up records became unavailable or they experienced an outcome of interest.ExposuresPrescription of antihypertensive medication. Propensity scores for likelihood of treatment were constructed using a logistic regression model. Individuals treated within 12 months of diagnosis were matched to untreated patients by propensity score using the nearest-neighbor method.Main outcomes and measuresThe rates of mortality, CVD, and adverse events among patients prescribed antihypertensive treatment at baseline, compared with those who were not prescribed such treatment, using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsA total of 19 143 treated patients (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [11.8] years; 10 705 [55.9%] women; 10 629 [55.5%] white) were matched to 19 143 similar untreated patients (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [12.2] years; 10 631 [55.5%] female; 10 654 [55.7%] white). During a median follow-up period of 5.8 years (interquartile range, 2.6-9.0 years), no evidence of an association was found between antihypertensive treatment and mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88-1.17) or between antihypertensive treatment and CVD (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95-1.25). Treatment was associated with an increased risk of adverse events, including hypotension (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.20; number needed to harm at 10 years [NNH10], 41), syncope (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.50; NNH10, 35), electrolyte abnormalities (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12-2.65; NNH10, 111), and acute kidney injury (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.00-1.88; NNH10, 91).Conclusions and relevanceThis prespecified analysis found no evidence to support guideline recommendations that encourage initiation of treatment in patients with low-risk mild hypertension. There was evidence of an increased risk of adverse events, which suggests that physicians should exercise caution when following guidelines that generalize findings from trials conducted in high-risk individuals to those at lower risk.

Project description:BackgroundSchizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses which are highly prevalent worldwide. Risperidone and Paliperidone are treatments for either illnesses, but their efficacy compared to other antipsychotics and growing reports of hormonal imbalances continue to raise concerns. As existing evidence on both antipsychotics are solely based on aggregate data, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, using individual participant data (IPD), clinical study reports (CSRs) and publicly available sources (journal publications and trial registries).MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Central, EMBASE and PsycINFO until December 2020 for randomised placebo-controlled trials of Risperidone, Paliperidone or Paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We obtained IPD and CSRs from the Yale University Open Data Access project. The primary outcome Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score was analysed using one-stage IPD meta-analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis of harm outcomes involved methods for coping with rare events. Effect-sizes were compared across all available data sources using the ratio of means or relative risk. We registered our review on PROSPERO, CRD42019140556.ResultsOf the 35 studies, IPD meta-analysis involving 22 (63%) studies showed a significant clinical reduction in the PANSS in patients receiving Risperidone (mean difference - 5.83, 95% CI - 10.79 to - 0.87, I2 = 8.5%, n = 4 studies, 1131 participants), Paliperidone (- 6.01, 95% CI - 8.7 to - 3.32, I2 = 4.3%, n = 13, 3821) and Paliperidone palmitate (- 7.89, 95% CI - 12.1 to - 3.69, I2 = 2.9%, n = 5, 2209). CSRs reported nearly two times more adverse events (4434 vs. 2296 publication, relative difference (RD) = 1.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.00) and almost 8 times more serious adverse events (650 vs. 82; RD = 7.93, 95% CI 6.32 to 9.95) than the journal publications. Meta-analyses of individual harms from CSRs revealed a significant increased risk among several outcomes including extrapyramidal disorder, tardive dyskinesia and increased weight. But the ratio of relative risk between the different data sources was not significant. Three treatment-related gynecomastia events occurred, and these were considered mild to moderate in severity.ConclusionIPD meta-analysis conclude that Risperidone and Paliperidone antipsychotics had a small beneficial effect on reducing PANSS score over 9 weeks, which is more conservative than estimates from reviews based on journal publications. CSRs also contained significantly more data on harms that were unavailable in journal publications or trial registries. Sharing of IPD and CSRs are necessary when performing meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics.

Project description:There are concerns about the potential for unintentional harms when clinical practice guidelines are applied to patients with multimorbidity. The objective was to summarize the evidence regarding the effect(s) of comorbidity on the outcomes of medication for an index chronic condition.A systematic review was conducted of studies published in MEDLINE and Cochrane Trials before May 2012. The search strategy was constructed to identify articles indexed with "comorbidity" or a related term or by a given condition and one or more additional specified comorbid conditions. The search yielded 3252 articles, of which 37 passed the title/abstract screening process, and 22 were included after full-text review. An additional 23 articles were identified by screening the reference lists for included articles. Information was extracted on study design; population; therapy; comparison groups; outcome(s); main findings.Indexing of articles was inconsistent, with no term for "multimorbidity," and rare use of "comorbidity". Only one article examined the effects of comorbidity per se, finding no benefit of tight control of DM among persons with high comorbidity, defined using a comorbidity index. The remainder examined pairs of conditions, the majority of which were post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials and which found no difference in outcomes according to whether a comorbid condition was present. Several demonstrated no difference or an increased risk of adverse outcome among persons with DM and tight control of HTN as compared to usual control. Several demonstrated lack of benefit of statins among persons with end-stage renal disease.There is limited evidence regarding the effects of multiple comorbidities on treatment outcomes. The majority of studies demonstrated no effect of a single comorbid condition on outcomes. Additional studies examining a broad range of comorbidity are required, along with clear and consistent indexing to allow for improved synthesis of the evidence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The CRASH-2 trial showed that tranexamic acid (TXA) administration reduces mortality in bleeding trauma patients. However, the effect appeared to depend on how soon after injury TXA treatment was started. Treatment within 3 h reduced bleeding deaths whereas treatment after 3 h increased the risk. We examine how patient characteristics vary by time to treatment and explore whether any such variations explain the time-dependent treatment effect. METHODS:Exploratory analysis were carried out, including per-protocol analyses, of data from the CRASH-2 trial, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of the effect of TXA on mortality in 20,211 trauma patients with, or at risk of, significant bleeding. We examine how patient characteristics (age, type of injury, presence or absence of head injury, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), systolic blood pressure and capillary refill time) vary with time to treatment and use univariable (restriction) and multivariable methods to examine whether any such variations explain the time-dependent effect of TXA. If not explained by differences in patient characteristics, we planned to conduct separate prespecified subgroup analyses for the early benefit and late harm. RESULTS:There was no substantial variation in age or capillary refill by time to treatment. However, the proportion of patients with blunt trauma, the proportion with head injury and mean systolic blood pressure increased as time to treatment increased. Mean GCS decreased as time to treatment increased. Analyses restricted to patients with blunt trauma, those without head injury and those with a systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg showed that these characteristics did not explain the time-dependent treatment effect. In a multivariable analysis the interaction with time to treatment remained highly significant (p?<?0.0001). Separate subgroup analyses that examine how the benefits of early TXA treatment and the harms of late TXA treatment vary by systolic blood pressure (?75, 76-89, >89 mmHg); GCS (severe 3-8, moderate 9-12, mild 13-15); and type of injury (penetrating versus blunt) showed no significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:The time-dependent effect of TXA in bleeding trauma patients is not explained by the type of injury, the presence or absence of head injury or systolic blood pressure. When given within 3 h of injury, TXA reduces death due to bleeding regardless of type of injury, GCS or blood pressure. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00375258 . Registered on 11 September 2006.