Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Yong ASJ, Lim KK, Fox-Rushby J, Ismail F, Hamzah E, Cheong MWL, et al.
    Value Health, 2023 Dec;26(12):1772-1781.
    PMID: 37741445 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.08.009
    OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantify the preferences of patients with advanced cancer for quality of life (QoL) outcomes versus survival extension in Malaysia. The secondary aim of this study is to explore the change in preferences over time.

    METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was developed to include 7 attributes valued in cancer management: physical, psychological and social functioning, pain control, survival, place of death, and cost. Patients were recruited via convenience sampling from 2 Malaysian public hospitals. The survey questionnaire was administered to patients within 6 months of their cancer diagnosis with a follow-up 3 months later. Conditional logit regression was used to estimate the preference weight, relative attribute importance, and willingness to pay.

    RESULTS: One hundred valid responses were collected at baseline and 45 at follow-up. Respondents placed higher values on QoL improvements from severe to moderate or mild levels and to achieve home death over survival extension from 6 to 18 months. However, additional improvements (from moderate to mild) in some of the QoL outcomes were not valued as highly as life extension from 12 to 18 months, showing that it was vital for patients to avoid being in "severe" health dysfunction. Improving physical dysfunction from severe to mild yielded 3 times as much value as additional 1-year survival. After 3 months, the respondents' preferences changed significantly, with increased relative attribute importance of physical functioning, pain control, and cost.

    CONCLUSIONS: As QoL outcomes are valued more than survival, palliative care should be introduced as early as possible to alleviate suffering related to advanced cancer.

  2. Lim KK, Koleva-Kolarova R, Kamaruzaman HF, Kamil AA, Chowienczyk P, Wolfe CDA, et al.
    J Am Heart Assoc, 2024 Mar 05;13(5):e030058.
    PMID: 38390792 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.030058
    BACKGROUND: Genetic-guided pharmacotherapy (PGx) is not recommended in clinical guidelines for coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to examine the extent and quality of evidence from economic evaluations of PGx in CAD and to identify variables influential in changing conclusions on cost-effectiveness.

    METHODS AND RESULTS: From systematic searches across 6 databases, 2 independent reviewers screened, included, and rated the methodological quality of economic evaluations of PGx testing to guide pharmacotherapy for patients with CAD. Of 35 economic evaluations included, most were model-based cost-utility analyses alone, or alongside cost-effectiveness analyses of PGx testing to stratify patients into antiplatelets (25/35), statins (2/35), pain killers (1/35), or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (1/35) to predict CAD risk (8/35) or to determine the coumadin doses (1/35). To stratify patients into antiplatelets (96/151 comparisons with complete findings of PGx versus non-PGx), PGx was more effective and more costly than non-PGx clopidogrel (28/43) but less costly than non-PGx prasugrel (10/15) and less costly and less effective than non-PGx ticagrelor (22/25). To predict CAD risk (51/151 comparisons), PGx using genetic risk scores was more effective and less costly than clinical risk score (13/17) but more costly than no risk score (16/19) or no treatment (9/9). The remaining comparisons were too few to observe any trend. Mortality risk was the most common variable (47/294) changing conclusions.

    CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations to date found PGx to stratify patients with CAD into antiplatelets or to predict CAD risk to be cost-effective, but findings varied based on the non-PGx comparators, underscoring the importance of considering local practice in deciding whether to adopt PGx.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links