Quantifying patient preferences to inform benefit-risk evaluations

Benefit-Risk Assessment in Pharmaceutical Research and Development

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 37-58

  Johnson, F Reed ^c   Hauber, A Brett ^a   Zhang, Jing ^b  

^a RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016932795     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. European Medicines Agency. 2013. Guidance document on the content of the Rapporteur day 80 critical assessment report. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/ document_library/ Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline /2009/10/WC500004800.pdf.
2. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. 2012. Factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations in medical device premarket approval and de novo classifications. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM296379.pdf.
3. Arno, P., and Feiden, K. 1992. Against the odds: The story of drug development, politics and profits. New York: Harper Collins.
4. Armstrong, D. 2005. Research bolsters tarnished MS drug. Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2005.
5. Mathews, A., and Westphal, S. 2006. Tricky FDA debate: Should a risky drug be approved again? Wall Street Journal, February 24, 2006.
6. Grady, D., and Gardiner, H. 2004. Over prescribing prompted warning on anti-depressants. New York Times, March 24, 2004.
7. European Medicines Agency. 2010. Road map to 2015. http://www.ema. europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2011/01/C500101373.pdf.
8. Maxmen, A. 2012. Law spurs regulator to heed patients' priorities. Nature 487: 54.
9. Chilton, F., and Collett, R. 2008. Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care 6: 1-14.
10. American Medical Association. 1998. Informed consent. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/patient-physician-relationship-topics/informed-consent.page.
11. CIOMS IV Working Group. 1998. Benefit-risk balancefor marketed drugs: Evaluating safety signals. Report of the CIOMS Working Group IV. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, Geneva.
12. Wong, M., et al. 2012. Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Journal of Medical Economics 15: 1139-1148.
13. Lynd, L., and O'Brien, B. 2004. Advances in risk-benefit evaluation using probabilistic simulation methods: An application to the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 57: 795-803.
14. McQuay, H., and Moore, R. 1997. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Annals of Internal Medicine 126: 712-720.
15. Powell, H., and Gibson, P. 2003. Inhaled corticosteroid doses in asthma: An evidence-based approach. Medical Journal of Australia 178: 223-225.
16. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453-458.
17. Ozdemir, S., Johnson, F., and Hauber, B. 2009. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. Journal of Health Economics 28: 894-901.
18. Wittink, D., and Cattin, P. 1989. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing 53: 91-96.
19. Viscusi, W., Magat, W., and Huber, J. 1991. Pricing environmental health risks: Survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21(1): 32-51.
20. Johnson, F., and Desvousges, W. 1997. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34: 79-99.
21. Johnson, F., Fries, E., and Banzhaf, H. 1997. Valuing morbidity: An integration of the willingness-to-pay and health-status index literatures. Journal of Health Economics 16: 641-665.
22. Ryan, M., and Hughes, J. 1997. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Economics 6: 261-273.
23. Bryan, S., Buxton, M., Sheldon, R., and Grant, A. 1998. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: An investigation of preferences. Health Economics 7: 595-603.
24. Johnson, F., Desvousges, W., Ruby, M., Stieb, D., and DeCivita, P. 1998. Eliciting stated health preferences: An application to willingness to pay for longevity. Medical Decision Making 18: S57-S67.
25. Johnson, F., Banzhaf, M., and Desvousges, W. 2000. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: A multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Economics 9: 295-317.
26. Marshall, D., et al. 2010. Conjoint analysis applications in health-How are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3: 249-256.
27. Hensher, D., Rose, J., and Greene, W. 2005. Applied choice analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. National Cancer Institute. 2010. Common terminology criteria for adverse events, v. 4.0. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm.
29. Train, K. 2003. Discrete choice models with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Train, K., and Sonnier, G. 2005. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 6: 117-134.
31. Glickman, T., and Gough, M. 1990. Readings in risk. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
32. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 2000. Choices, values, and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.