Skip to Main Content
272
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
Altmetric
 
Translator disclaimer

Abstract

Assessment of benefit–risk for treatments is usually complex and involves trade-offs between multiple, often conflicting, preferences. Although discrete choice experiments are increasingly used in health outcomes research to assess trade-offs in preferences, their usage in benefit–risk assessment so far is fairly limited. This is primarily because of the high cognitive burden to assess multiple attributes and the requirement for a large pool of respondents. The hierarchical Bayes benefit–risk model using choice based conjoint that we propose drastically reduces the cognitive burden as each respondent only needs to evaluate a small fraction of preference questions, each of which compares a single pair of attributes. This method also leverages the Bayesian framework to borrow strength for analysis with a limited number of respondents. This article illustrates both a simulated experiment and a pilot experiment incorporating experts’ preferences in oncology. Ultimately, patients are the most important voice in the benefit–risk balance. Therefore, we propose an augmented model to obtain a more precise estimate of benefit–risk preferences based on patients’ characteristics.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Madeline Michael for her work to create the online discrete choice survey tool for the pilot experiment. We also sincerely acknowledge Dr. Alan Hartford at AbbVie for his support and valuable comments.

Funding

The support of this manuscript was provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the review and approval of the content. Saurabh Mukhopadhyay, Kimberley Dilley, Anthony Oladipo, and Jeremy Jokinen are employees of AbbVie, Inc.

Login options

Purchase * Save for later
Online

Article Purchase 24 hours to view or download: USD 51.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase USD 105.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable