Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 79, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 978-987

  Mol, Peter G M ^a   Arnardottir, Arna H ^a   Straus, Sabine M J ^b   De Graeff, Pieter A ^a   Haaijer Ruskamp, Flora M ^a,c   Quik, Elise H ^a   Krabbe, Paul F M ^a   Denig, Petra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b MEDICINES EVALUATION BOARD   (Netherlands)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

benefit risk assessment; drug preference; oral antidiabetes drug; survey

Indexed keywords

GLYCOSYLATED HEMOGLOBIN; ORAL ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HEMOGLOBIN A1C PROTEIN, HUMAN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; BODY WEIGHT; CANCER RISK; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG EFFECT; DRUG PREFERENCE; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOM; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BLOOD; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPLICATION; DECISION MAKING; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG EFFECTS; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; ODDS RATIO; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WEIGHT GAIN;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BIOMARKERS; BLOOD GLUCOSE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIA; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WEIGHT GAIN;

EID: 84930002704     PISSN: 03065251     EISSN: 13652125     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12566     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Gale EA,. GLP-1 based agents and acute pancreatitis: drug safety falls victim to the three monkey paradigm. BMJ 2013; 346: f1263.
2. Godlee F,. Rosiglitazone: a cautionary tale. BMJ 2010; 341: c4896.
3. Cohen D,. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong? BMJ 2010; 341: c4848.
4. Prescrire International. New drugs and indications in 2010: inadequate assessment; patients at risk. Rev Prescrire 2011; 31: 134-141.
5. Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Brasseur D, Breckenridge A, Leufkens H, Raine J, Salmonson T, Schneider CK, Rasi G,. The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013; 12: 907-916.
6. Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ,. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8: 125. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-125.
7. Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M,. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products-liraglutide and exenatide-for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ 2010; 13: 655-661.
8. Bogelund M, Vilsboll T, Faber J, Henriksen JE, Gjesing RP, Lammert M,. Patient preferences for diabetes management among people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark-a discrete choice experiment. Curr Med Res Opin 2011; 27: 2175-2183.
9. Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Falvey H,. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med 2009; 26: 416-424.
10. Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Poulos CM,. A brief introduction to the use of stated-choice methods to measure preferences for treatment benefits and risks. Research Triangle Institute; 2009. Report no. RR-0009-0909.
11. Ryan M, Farrar S,. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 1530-1533.
12. Nissen SE, Wolski K,. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2457-2471.
13. Hillaire-Buys D, Faillie J, Montastruc J,. Pioglitazone and bladder cancer. Lancet 2011; 378: 1543-1544.
14. Faillie JL, Petit P, Montastruc JL, Hillaire-Buys D,. Scientific evidence and controversies about pioglitazone and bladder cancer: which lessons can be drawn? Drug Saf 2013; 36: 693-707.
15. Colmers IN, Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Johnson JA,. Use of thiazolidinediones and the risk of bladder cancer among people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2012; 184: E675-683.
16. Arons AM, Krabbe PF,. Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theories, assumptions and applications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 13: 93-108.
17. Arnott J, Hesselgreaves H, Nunn AJ, Peak M, Pirmohamed M, Smyth RL, Turner MA, Young B,. Enhancing communication about paediatric medicines: lessons from a qualitative study of parents' experiences of their child's suspected adverse drug reaction. PLoS One 2012; 7: e46022.
18. Medicines for children: better, more and faster. EURORDIS position paper on the proposal for a regulation on medicinal products for paediatric use [Internet]. Available at http://www.eurordis.org/IMG/pdf/eurordis-position-medicines-children-31jan05.pdf (last accessed 16 June 2014).
19. Britten N, Denford S, Stein K,. Involving patients in drug licensing decisions. BMJ 2013; 347: f4329.
20. Hawkes N,. Industry and drug regulators disagree on which data should remain confidential. BMJ 2013; 347: f5390.
21. European Medicines Agency. Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, composition [Internet]. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about-us/general/general-content-000537.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058058cb18 (last accessed 16 June 2014).
22. Buusman A, Andersen M, Merrild C, Elverdam B,. Factors influencing GPs' choice between drugs in a therapeutic drug group. A qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2007; 25: 208-213.
23. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment or prevention of diabetes mellitus. European Medicines Agency; 2012. Report no. CPMP/EWP/1080/00 Rev. 1.
24. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) group. Lancet 1998; 352: 854-865.
25. White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, Nissen SE, Bergenstal RM, Bakris GL, Perez AT, Fleck PR, Mehta CR, Kupfer S, Wilson C, Cushman WC, Zannad F,; EXAMINE Investigators. Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1327-1335.
26. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, Steg PG, Davidson J, Hirshberg B, Ohman P, Frederich R, Wiviott SD, Hoffman EB, Cavender MA, Udell JA, Desai NR, Mosenzon O, McGuire DK, Ray KK, Leiter LA, Raz I, SAVOR-TIMI 53 Steering Committee and Investigators. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1317-1326.
27. ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, Woodward M, Marre M, Cooper M, Glasziou P, Grobbee D, Hamet P, Harrap S, Heller S, Liu L, Mancia G, Mogensen CE, Pan C, Poulter N, Rodgers A, Williams B, Bompoint S, de Galan BE, Joshi R, Travert F,. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2560-2572.
28. ACCORD Study Group, Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Grimm RH Jr, Cutler JA, Simons-Morton DG, Basile JN, Corson MA, Probstfield JL, Katz L, Peterson KA, Friedewald WT, Buse JB, Bigger JT, Gerstein HC, Ismail-Beigi F,. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1575-1585.
29. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on clinical evaluation of medicinal products in the treatment or prevention of diabetes mellitus. 2012. Report nr CPMP/EWP/1080/00 Rev.1.
30. Lehman R, Yudkin JS, Krumholz H,. Licensing drugs for diabetes. BMJ 2010; 341: c4805.
31. Dennett SL, Boye KS, Yurgin NR,. The impact of body weight on patient utilities with or without type 2 diabetes: a review of the medical literature. Value Health 2008; 11: 478-486.
32. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM,. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 543-548.
33. Turner RM, Kwok CS, Chen-Turner C, Maduakor CA, Singh S, Loke UK,. Thiazolidinediones and associated risk of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014; 78: 258-273.
34. Slovic P,. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan, 2000.
35. Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B,. How to do (or not to do)... designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009; 24: 151-158.
36. Hildon Z, Allwood D, Black N,. Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012; 24: 55-64.
37. Johnson FR, Hauber B, Özdemir S, Siegel CA, Hass S, Sands BE,. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit-risk preferences in Crohn's disease management. J Manag Care Pharm 2010; 16: 616-628.
38. Professions in Healthcare. Database. [ Beroepen in de Gezondheidszorg. Databank ] 2011 [Internet]. Available at http://www.nivel.nl/databank. (last accessed 16 June 2014).
39. Ebbers HC, Pieters T, Leufkens HG, Schellekens H,. Effective pharmaceutical regulation needs alignment with doctors. Drug Discov Today 2012; 17: 100-103.