Dataset Information

Clinician Conceptualization of the Benefits of Treatments for Individual Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Knowing the expected effect of treatment on an individual patient is essential for patient care.

Objective

To explore clinicians' conceptualizations of the chance that treatments will decrease the risk of disease outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants

This survey study of attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants was conducted in outpatient clinical settings in 8 US states from June 2018 to November 2019. The survey was an in-person, paper, 26-item survey in which clinicians were asked to estimate the probability of adverse disease outcomes and expected effects of therapies for diseases common in primary care.

Main outcomes and measures

Estimated chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient.

Results

Of 723 clinicians, 585 (81%) responded, and 542 completed all the questions necessary for analysis, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 32 (29-44) years, 287 (53%) women, and 294 (54%) White participants. Clinicians consistently overestimated the chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. The median (IQR) estimated chance that warfarin would prevent a stroke in the next year was 50% (5%-80%) compared with scientific evidence, which indicates an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.2% to 1.0% based on a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 39% to 50%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that antihypertensive therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event within 5 years was 30% (10%-70%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0% to 3% based on an RRR of 0% to 28%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that bisphosphonate therapy would prevent a hip fracture in the next 5 years was 40% (10%-60%) vs evidence of ARR of 0.1% to 0.4% based on an RRR of 20% to 40%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that moderate-intensity statin therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event in the next 5 years was 20% (IQR 5%-50%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0.3% to 2% based on an RRR of 19% to 33%. Estimates of the chance that a treatment would prevent an adverse outcome exceeded estimates of the absolute chance of that outcome for 60% to 70% of clinicians. Clinicians whose overestimations were greater were more likely to report using that treatment for patients in their practice (eg, use of warfarin: correlation coefficient, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.40-0.53; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

In this survey study, clinicians significantly overestimated the benefits of treatment to individual patients. Clinicians with greater overestimates were more likely to report using treatments in actual patients.

SUBMITTER: Morgan DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295738 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe objectives of this study were to elicit the preferences of patients with multiple myeloma regarding the possible benefits and risks of cancer treatments and to illustrate how such data may be used to estimate patients' acceptance of new treatments.Patients and methodsPatients with multiple myeloma from the cancer charity Myeloma UK were invited to participate in an online survey based on multicriteria decision analysis and swing weighting to elicit individual stated preferences for the following attributes: (a) 1-year progression-free survival (PFS, ranging from 50% to 90%), (b) mild or moderate toxicity for 2 months or longer (ranging from 85% to 45%), and (c) severe or life-threatening toxicity (ranging from 80% to 20%).ResultsA total of 560 participants completed the survey. The average weight given to PFS was 0.54, followed by 0.32 for severe or life-threatening toxicity and 0.14 for mild or moderate chronic toxicity. Participants who ranked severe or life-threatening toxicity above mild or moderate chronic toxicity (56%) were more frequently younger, working, and looking after dependent family members and had more frequently experienced severe or life-threatening side effects. The amount of weight given to PFS did not depend on any of the collected covariates. The feasibility of using the collected preference data to estimate the patients' acceptance of specific multiple myeloma treatments was demonstrated in a subsequent decision analysis example.ConclusionStated preference studies provide a systematic approach to gain knowledge about the distribution of preferences in the population and about what this implies for patients' acceptance of specific treatments.Implications for practiceThis study demonstrated how quantitative preference statements from a large group of participants can be collected through an online survey and how such information may be used to explore the acceptability of specific treatments based on the attributes studied. Results from such studies have the potential to become an important new tool for gathering patient views and studying heterogeneity in preferences in a systematic way, along with other methods, such as focus groups and expert opinions.

Project description:Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation. Left untreated, EoE progresses to fibrous remodeling and stricture formation that impairs quality of life. Therefore, EoE requires either repeated treatments or maintenance therapy. Current guidelines recommend swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs), proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), or dietary intervention as initial options to induce and maintain long-term disease remission. Impractical exclusive elemental diets and suboptimal allergy testing-directed food avoidance paved the way for empirical elimination diets. These are moderately effective and highly reproducible in inducing EoE remission and allow for identification of specific food triggers. Step-up strategies, including two- and four-food rather than six-food elimination diets, should be considered as initial approaches for dietary treatment in patients of all ages, as they reduce the need for endoscopic procedures, shorten diagnostic processing time, and avoid unnecessary restrictions. Formulations of STC originally designed for asthma therapy are suboptimal for EoE treatment, with new effervescent orodispersible tablets and viscose formulations designed to coat the esophageal mucosa providing increased effectiveness at reduced doses. The anti-inflammatory effects of PPI in EoE are independent from gastric acid secretion inhibition; despite evidence from observational research, PPIs are the most commonly prescribed first-line therapy for EoE due to their accessibility, low cost, and safety profile. Double doses of PPI only induce remission in half of EoE patients, irrespective of the drug used or patients' age. Inflammatory rather than stricturing EoE phenotype and treatment duration up to 12 weeks increase chances of achieving EoE remission. Most responders effectively maintain long-term remission with standard PPI doses. Finally, endoscopic dilation should be considered in patients with reduced esophageal caliber or persistent dysphagia despite histological remission. This article provides a state-of-the-art review and updated discussion of current therapies and newly developed options for EoE.

Project description:ImportanceRadiation dermatitis is common and often treated with topical therapy. Patients are typically advised to avoid topical agents for several hours before daily radiotherapy (RT) out of concern that topical agents might increase the radiation dose to the skin. With modern RT's improved skin-sparing properties, this recommendation may be irrelevant.ObjectiveTo assess whether applying either metallic or nonmetallic topical agents before radiation treatment alters the skin dose.Design, setting, and participantsA 24-question online survey of patients and clinicians was conducted from January 15, 2015, to March 15, 2017, to determine current practices regarding topical therapy use. In preclinical studies, dosimetric effect of the topical agents was evaluated by delivering 200 monitor units and measuring the dose at the surface and at 2-cm depth in a tissue-equivalent phantom with or without 2 common topical agents: a petroleum-based ointment (Aquaphor, petrolatum 41%) and silver sulfadiazine cream, 1%. Skin doses associated with various photon and electron energies, topical agent thicknesses, and beam incidence were assessed. Whether topical agents altered the skin dose was also evaluated in 24 C57BL/6 mice by using phosphorylated histone (γ-H2AX) immunofluorescent staining and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay. Preclinical studies took place at the University of Pennsylvania.Main outcomes and measuresPatient and clinician survey responses; surface radiation dose readings in tissue-equivalent phantom; and γ-H2AX and TUNEL intensity measured in mice.ResultsThe 133 patients surveyed received RT for cancer and had a median (range) age of 60 (18-86) years; 117 (87.9%) were women. One hundred eight clinicians completed the survey with 105 reporting that they were involved in managing patient skin care during RT. One hundred eleven (83.4%) of the patients and 96 (91.4%) of the 105 clinicians received or gave the advice to avoid applying topical agents before RT treatments. Dosimetric measurements showed no difference in the delivered dose at either the surface or a 2-cm depth with or without a 1- to 2-mm application of either topical agent when using en face 6- or 15-megavoltage (MV) photons. The same application of topicals did not alter the surface dose as a function of beam incident angle from 15° to 60°, except for a 6% increase at 60° with the silver sulfadiazine cream. Surface dose for 6- and 15-MV beams were significantly increased with a thicker (≥3-mm) topical application. For 6 MV, the surface dose was 1.05 Gy with a thick layer of petroleum-based ointment and 1.02 Gy for silver sulfadiazine cream vs 0.88 Gy without topical agents. For 15 MV, the doses were 0.70 Gy for a thick layer of petroleum-based ointment and 0.60 Gy for silver sulfadiazine cream vs 0.52 Gy for the controls. With 6- and 9-MeV electrons, there was a 2% to 5% increase in surface dose with the use of the topical agents. There were no dose differences at 2-cm depth. Irradiated skin in mice showed no differences in γ-H2AX-positive foci or in TUNEL staining with or without topical agents of varying thickness.Conclusions and relevanceThin or moderately applied topical agents, even if applied just before RT, may have minimal influence on skin dose regardless of beam energy or beam incidence. The findings of this study suggest that applying very thick amounts of a topical agent before RT may increase the surface dose and should be avoided.

Project description:BackgroundTwo-dimensional personalized medicine (2-PM) models are tools for measuring individual benefits of medical treatments for chronic diseases which have potential applications in personalized medicine. These models assume normality for the distribution of random effects. It is necessary to examine the appropriateness of this assumption. Here, we propose a graphical approach to assessing the goodness-of-fit of 2-PM models with continuous responses.MethodsWe propose benefit quantile-quantile (BQQ) plots which compare the empirical quantiles of individual benefits from a patient sample predicted through an empirical Bayes (EB) approach versus the quantiles of the theoretical distribution of individual benefits derived from the assumption of normality for the random effects. We examine the performance of the approach by conducting a simulation study that compared 2-PM models with non-normal distributions for the random effects versus models with comparable normal distributions. Cramer-von Mises discrepancies were used to quantify the performance of the approach. The approach was illustrated with data from a clinical trial of imipramine for patients with depression.ResultsSimulations showed that BQQ plots were able to capture deviations from the normality assumption for the random effects and did not show any asymmetric deviations from the y?=?x line when the random effects were normally distributed. For the depression data, the points of the BQQ plot were scattered around closely to the y?=?x line, without presenting any asymmetric deviations. This implied the adequacy of the normality assumption for the random effects and the goodness-of-fit of the 2-PM model for the imipramine data.ConclusionBQQ plots are sensitive to violations of the normality assumption for the random effects, suggesting that the approach is a useful tool for examining the goodness-of-fit of random-effects linear models when the goal is to measure individual treatment benefits.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study compared ways of describing treatment effects. The objective was to better explain to clinicians and patients what they might expect from a given treatment, not only in terms of relative and absolute risk reduction, but also in projections of long-term survival.BackgroundThe restricted mean survival time (RMST) can be used to estimate of long-term survival, providing a complementary approach to more conventional metrics (e.g., absolute and relative risk), which may suggest greater benefits of therapy in high-risk patients compared with low-risk patients.MethodsRelative and absolute risk, as well as the RMST, were calculated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials.ResultsAs examples, in the RALES trial (more severe HFrEF), the treatment effect metrics for spironolactone versus placebo on heart failure hospitalization and/or cardiovascular death were a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.77), number needed to treat = 9 (7 to 14), and age extension of event-free survival +1.1 years (-0.1 to + 2.3 years). The corresponding metrics for EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone vs. placebo in less severe HFrEF) were 0.64 (0.54 to 0.75), 14 (1 to 22), and +2.9 (1.2 to 4.5). In patients in PARADIGM-HF aged younger than 65 years, the metrics for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88), 23 (15 to 44), and +1.7 (0.6 to 2.8) years; for those aged 65 years or older, the metrics were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94), 29 (17 to 83), and +0.9 (0.2 to 1.6) years, which provided evidence of a greater potential life extension in younger patients. Similar observations were found for lower risk patients.ConclusionsRMST event-free (and overall) survival estimates provided a complementary means of evaluating the effect of therapy in relation to age and risk. They also provided a clinically useful metric that should be routinely reported and used to explain the potential long-term benefits of a given treatment, especially to younger and less symptomatic patients.