Balance of benefits and harms of different blood pressure targets in people with multiple chronic conditions: a quantitative benefit-harm assessment

Incorporating Individual-Level Treatment Effects and Outcome Preferences Into Personalized Blood Pressure Target Recommendations

BACKGROUND

There are no shared decision-making frameworks for selecting blood pressure (BP) targets for individuals with hypertension. This study addressed whether results from the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) could be tailored to individuals using predicted risks and simulated preferences.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 8202 SPRINT participants, Cox models were developed and internally validated to predict each individual's absolute difference in risk from intensive versus standard BP lowering for cardiovascular events, cognitive impairment, death, and serious adverse events (AEs). Individual treatment effects were combined using simulated preference weights into a net benefit, which represents a weighted sum of risk differences across outcomes. Net benefits were compared among those above versus below the median AE risk. In simulations for which cardiovascular, cognitive, and death events had much greater weight than the AEs of BP lowering, the median net benefit was 3.3 percentage points (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-5.7), and 100% of participants had a net benefit favoring intensive BP lowering. When simulating benefits and harms to have similar weights, the median net benefit was 0.8 percentage points (IQR, 0.2-2.2), and 87% had a positive net benefit. Compared with participants at lower risk of AEs from BP lowering, those at higher risk had a greater net benefit from intensive BP lowering despite experiencing more AEs (P<0.001 in both simulations).

CONCLUSIONS

Most SPRINT participants had a predicted net benefit that favored intensive BP lowering, but the degree of net benefit varied considerably. Tailoring BP targets using each patient's risks and preferences may provide more refined BP target recommendations.

Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVES

To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons.

METHODS

The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle.

RESULTS

CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation.

Best-worst scaling preferences among patients with well-controlled epilepsy: Pilot results

Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a 'warmup' question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one 'inconsistent choice' for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though 'inconsistent choices' represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. 'Inconsistent' responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single 'seizure' category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments

OBJECTIVES

In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care.

METHODS

We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification). We refined strategies to select the most applicable, valid, and precise evidence.

RESULTS

Two processes were important when assessing the balance of benefits and harms of interventions: (1) engaging stakeholders and (2) stratification by patient preferences and characteristics. Engaging patients and caregivers through focus groups, preference surveys, and as co-investigators provided value in prioritizing research questions, identifying relevant clinical outcomes, and clarifying the relative importance of these outcomes. Our strategies to select evidence for stratified benefit-harm assessments considered consistency across outcomes and subgroups. By quantitatively estimating the range in the benefit-harm balance resulting from true variation in preferences, we clarified whether the benefit-harm balance is preference sensitive.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approaches for engaging patients and caregivers at all phases of the stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments were feasible and revealed how sensitive the benefit-harm balance is to patient characteristics and individual preferences. Accordingly, this sensitivity can suggest to guideline developers when to tailor recommendations for specific patient subgroups or when to explicitly leave decision making to individual patients and their providers.

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling

BACKGROUND

Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

METHODS

We sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals.

RESULTS

Of 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.