When neurologist and patient disagree on reasonable risk: New challenges in prescribing for patients with multiple sclerosis

Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 197-208

  Kachuck, Norman J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Medical decision making; Medical ethics; Multiple sclerosis; Natalizumab; Patient physician relationship

Indexed keywords

BETA1A INTERFERON; NATALIZUMAB; PLACEBO;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN DAMAGE; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPANDED DISABILITY STATUS SCALE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MONOTHERAPY; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRESCRIPTION; PROCESS MODEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SELF CARE;

EID: 80053625353     PISSN: 11766328     EISSN: 11782021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S17522     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Kachuck NJ. Challenges and opportunities: what we are learning from the natalizumab experience. Expert Rev Neurotherapeutics. 2005;5: 605-615.
2. Cohen JA, Barkhof F, Comi G, et al. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362: 402-415.
3. Kappos L, Radue E-W, O'Connor P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362: 387-401.
4. Rudick RA, Stuart WH, Calabresi PA, et al. Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354: 911-923.
5. Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebocontrolled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:899-910.
6. Hauser SL, Johnston SC. Balancing risk and reward: the question of natalizumab. Ann Neurology. 2009;66:A7-A8.
7. Frohman EF, Goodin SS, Calabresi PA, et al. The utility of MRI in suspected MS. Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2003;61:602-611.
8. Montalban X, Tintore M, Swanton J, et al. MRI criteria for MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology. 2010;74: 427-434.
9. Heesen C, Bohm J, Reich C, Kasper J, Goebel M, Gold SM. Patient perception of bodily functions in multiple sclerosis: gait and visual function are the most valuable. Mult Scler. 2008;14:988-991.
10. Dutta R, Trapp BD. Mechanisms of neuronal dysfunction and degeneration in multiple sclerosis. Prog Neurobiol. 2011;93:1-12.
11. Heesen C, Solari A, Giordano A, Kasper J, Köpke S. Decisions on multiple sclerosis immunotherapy: new treatment complexities urge patient engagement. J Neurol Sci. 2010 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print].
12. Rudick RA, Stuart WH, Calabresi PA, et al. Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:911-923.
13. Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebocontrolled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:899-910.
14. Hutchinson M, Kappos L, Calabresi PA, Confavreux C, Giovannoni G, Investigators AFFIRM and SENTINEL. The efficacy of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: subgroup analyses of AFFIRM and SENTINEL. J Neurol. 2009;256:405-415.
15. Heesen C, Kleiter I, Nguyen F, et al. Risk perception in natalizumabtreated multiple sclerosis patients and their neurologists. Mult Scler. 2010;16:1507-1512.
16. Wundes A, Brown T, Biene EJ, Coleman CI. Contribution of intangible costs to the economic burden of multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2010;13: 626-632.
17. Weng H-C. Does the physician's emotional intelligence matter? Impacts of the physician's emotional intelligence on the trust, patientphysician relationship, and satisfaction. Health Care Manag Rev. 2008;33:280-288.
18. Public Health Service. Tysabri risk minimization action plan: summary of TOUCH. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM107197.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2011.
19. Kachuck N. REMS, research, and regrets: when is a passive postmarketing registry insufficient for patient safety? Los Angeles, CA: USC Keck School of Medicine; 2011.
20. Emanuel E, Emanuel L. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267:2221-2226.
21. Hurst SA, Hull SC, DuVal G, Danis M. How physicians face ethical difficulties: a qualitative analysis. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:7-14.
22. Krause EA. Death of the guilds: professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, 1930 to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1996.
23. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician/patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:651-661.
24. Brennan T; Foundation Project of the ABIM, Foundation ACP-ASIM, Medicine European Federation of Internal. Medical professionalism in the new mellenium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136: 243-246.
25. Spencer E. Professional ethics. In: Fletcher JC, Boyle R, editors. Introduction to clinical ethics. 2nd ed. Hagerstown, MD: University Publishing Group; 1997.
26. Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York City: Oxford Univ Press; 1998.
27. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196:129-136.
28. Ludmerer KM. Learning to heal: the development of American medical education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1985.
29. Parascandola M, Hawkins J, Danis M. Patient autonomy and the challenge of clinical uncertainty. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2002;12: 245-264.
30. Caldicott C, Danis M. Medical ethics contributes to clinical management: teaching medical student to engage patients as moral agents. Med Educ. 2009;43:283-289.
31. Pellegrino ED. The medical profession as a moral community. Bull NY Acad Med. 1990;66:221-232.
32. Heesen C, Kasper J, Köpke S, Richter T, Segal J, Mühlhauser I. Informed shared decision making in multiple sclerosis-inevitable or impossible? J Neurol Sci. 2007;259:109-117.
33. Kasper J, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, Nübling M, Heesen C. Informed shared decision making about immunotherapy for patients with multiple sclerosis (ISDIMS): a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Neurol. 2008;15:1345-1352.
34. Redelmeier D, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;278:302-305.
35. Rose A. Long-term care of patients with multiple sclerosis: a neurologist's perspective. Neurology. 1980;30:59-60.
36. Burnfield A. Doctor-patient dilemmas in multiple sclerosis. J Med Ethics. 1984;10:21-26.
37. Leino-Klipi H, Katajisto J. Elements of empowerment and MS patients. J Neurosci Nurs. 1998;30:116-123.
38. Nelson RF. Ethical issues in multiple sclerosis. Semin Neurol. 1997;17:227-234.
39. Hohlfeld R. Review: 'Gimme five': future challenges in multiple sclerosis. ECTRIMS Lecture 2009. Mult Scler. 2010;16:3-14.
40. Kasper J, Köpke S, Heesen C. Analysing immunotherapy choices using the theory of planned behavior. ECTRIMS 2010: Gothenburg, Sweden; 2010:S167.
41. Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry 1980;137:535-544.
42. Peabody RW. The care of the patient. JAMA. 1927;88:877-882.
43. Marewski J, Gassmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Good judgments do not require complex cognition. Cogn Process. 2010;11:103-121.
44. Stossel TP. Response to AMA's Council on ethical and judicial affairs draft report on "ethical guidance for physicians and the profession with respect to industry support for professional education in medicine". Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/575760. Accessed March 14, 2011.
45. Sergay SM. Doctoring 2009: embracing the challenge. Neurology. 2009;73:1234-1239.
46. American Academy of Neurology. AAN Code of Conduct. Available at: http://www.aan.com/go/about/ethics/conduct. Accessed March 14, 2011.
47. American Medical Association. Principles of medical ethics. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.shtml. Accessed March 14, 2011.
48. Heesen C, Kasper J, Segal J, Kopke S, Muhlhauser I. Decisional role preferences, risk knowledge and information interests in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2004;10:643-650.
49. Conway J, Kachuck N. Ethical perspectives in neurology: ethical considerations of when doctors' and patients' attitudes differ on risk aversion. Continuum: Lifelong Learning Neurol. 2010;16:234-237.