Towards personalized medicine: Exploring the consequences of the effect model-based approach

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 581-586

  Boissel, Jean Pierre ^a,b,c,d,e   Kahoul, Riad ^a,b,d,e   Amsallem, Emmanuel ^a   Gueyffier, François ^c,d,e,f   Haugh, Margaret ^a   Boissel, François Henri ^a,b  

^a Novacare   (France)

^b Novadiscovery   (France)

^c HOSPICES CIVILS DE LYON   (France)

^d LABORATOIRE DE BIOMÉTRIE ET BIOLOGIE EVOLUTIVE   (France)

^e UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^f INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

decision making; effect model; mathematical model; personalized medicine; risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EVALUATION; EFFECT MODEL; HEALTH CARE COST; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MODEL; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; TREATMENT INDICATION;

EID: 80052783921     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/pme.11.54     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 301-304 (2010).
2. Freedman AN, Sansbury LB, Figg WD et al. Cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology: setting a research agenda to accelerate translation. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 1698-1705 (2010).
3. Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S, Venter JC. An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 461, 724-726 (2009).
4. Boissel JP. Individualizing aspirin therapy for prevention of cardiovascular events. JAMA 280, 1949-1950 (1998).
5. Boissel JP, Gueyffier F, Haugh MC. Response to 'inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 - The perspective of NIH clinical trialists'. Control. Clin. Trials 16, 286-288 (1995).
6. Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ 311, 1356-1359 (1995).
7. Lubsen J, Tijssen JG. Large trials with simple protocols: indications and contraindications. Control. Clin. Trials 10, 151S-160S (1989). (Pubitemid 20029382)
8. Wang H, Boissel JP, Nony P. Revisiting the relationship between baseline risk and risk under treatment. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 6, 1 (2009)
9. Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Nony P et al. New insights on the relation between untreated and treated outcomes for a given therapy effect model is not necessarily linear. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 301-307 (2008). (Pubitemid 351146633)
10. L' Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann. Intern. Med. 107, 224-233 (1987). (Pubitemid 17137858)
11. Sturmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J. Pharmacoepidemiology and "in silico" drug evaluation: is there common ground? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 205-206 (2008).
12. Eckermann S, Coory M, Willan AR. Indirect comparison: relative risk fallacies and odds solution. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 1031-1036 (2009).
13. Li W, Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Gueyffier F, Boutitie F. Identification of responders to a therapy: an example of validation of a predictive model. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 15, 559-567 (1999). (Pubitemid 29400031)
14. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA et al. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat. Med. 27, 1870-1893 (2008). (Pubitemid 351634244)
15. Boland MV, Lehmann HP. A new method for determining physician decision thresholds using empiric, uncertain recommendations. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 10, 20 (2010).
16. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N. Engl. J. Med. 302, 1109-1117 (1980). (Pubitemid 10107527)
17. 1993 guidelines for the management of mild hypertension. Memorandum from a World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension meeting. Guidelines Subcommittee of the WHO/ISH Mild Hypertension Liaison Committee. Hypertension 22, 392-403 (1993).
18. Marchant I, Nony P, Cucherat M et al. The global risk approach should be better applied in French hypertensive patients: a comparison between simulation and observation studies. PLoS ONE 6, e17508 (2011).
19. Subcommittee on Definition and Prevalence of the 1984 Joint National Committee. Hypertension prevalence and the status of awareness, treatment, and control in the United States. Final report of the Subcommittee on Definition and Prevalence of the 1984 Joint National Committee. Hypertension 7, 457-468 (1985).
20. Cucherat M, Boissel JP. A mathematical model for the determination of the optimum value of the treatment threshold for a continuous risk factor. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 14, 23-29 (1998). (Pubitemid 28073857)
21. Haynes RB, Hayward RS, Lomas J. Bridges between health care research evidence and clinical practice. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2, 342-350 (1995).