Background. Personalizing medical treatment often requires practitioners to compare multiple treatment options, assess a patient’s unique risk and benefit from each option, and elicit a patient’s preferences around treatment. We integrated these 3 considerations into a decision-modeling framework for the selection of second-line glycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes. Methods. Based on multicriteria decision analysis, we developed a unified treatment decision support tool accounting for 3 factors: patient preferences, disease outcomes, and medication efficacy and safety profiles. By standardizing and multiplying these 3 factors, we calculated the ranking score for each medication. This approach was applied to determining second-line glycemic therapy by integrating 1) treatment efficacy and side-effect data from a network meta-analysis of 301 randomized trials (N = 219,277), 2) validated risk equations for type 2 diabetes complications, and 3) patient preferences around treatment (e.g., to avoid daily glucose testing). Data from participants with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003–2014, N = 1107) were used to explore variations in treatment recommendations and associated quality-adjusted life-years given different patient features. Results. Patients at the highest microvascular disease risk had glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists or basal insulin recommended as top choices, whereas those wanting to avoid an injected medication or daily glucose testing had sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors commonly recommended, and those with major cost concerns had sulfonylureas commonly recommended. By converting from the most common sulfonylurea treatment to the model-recommended treatment, NHANES participants were expected to save an average of 0.036 quality-adjusted life-years per person (about a half month) from 10 years of treatment. Conclusions. Models can help integrate meta-analytic treatment effect estimates with individualized risk calculations and preferences, to aid personalized treatment selection.
Rodriguez-GutierrezRGionfriddoMROspinaNSet al. Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(8):706–16.
2.
SmithSAShahNDBryantSCet al. Chronic care model and shared care in diabetes: randomized trial of an electronic decision support system. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(7):747–57.
3.
CefaluWTBoultonAJMTamborlaneWVet al. Status of diabetes care: new challenges, new concepts, new measures—focusing on the future!Diabetes Care. 2015;38(7):1177–80.
4.
ChamberlainJJHermanWHLealSet al. Pharmacologic therapy for type 2 diabetes: synopsis of the 2017 American Diabetes Association standards of medical care in diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(8):572–8.
5.
ShehabNLovegroveMCGellerAIRoseKOWeidleNJBudnitzDS.US emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events, 2013-2014. JAMA. 2016;316(20):2115–25.
6.
LaiteerapongNCooperJMSkandariMRet al. Individualized glycemic control for U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(3):170–8.
7.
WilkinsonMJNathanAGHuangES.Personalized decision support in type 2 diabetes mellitus: current evidence and future directions. Curr Diab Rep. 2013;13(2):205–12.
8.
YudkinJSKavanaghJMcCormackJP.Guidelines for treating risk factors should include tools for shared decision making. BMJ. 2016;353:i3147.
9.
MillsEJThorlundKIoannidisJP.Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f2914.
10.
LuGAdesAE.Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.
11.
HoaglinDCHawkinsNJansenJPet al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37.
12.
SalantiGHigginsJPAdesAEIoannidisJP.Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008;17(3):279–301.
13.
JansenJPFleurenceRDevineBet al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28.
14.
HigginsJPWeltonNJ.Network meta-analysis: a norm for comparative effectiveness?Lancet. 2015;386(9994):628–30.
15.
BasuSSussmanJBBerkowitzSAHaywardRAYudkinJS.Development and validation of Risk Equations for Complications Of type 2 Diabetes (RECODe) using individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(10):788–98.
16.
ElwynGStielMDurandMABoivinJ.The design of patient decision support interventions: addressing the theory-practice gap. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):565–74.
17.
BowenDJAllenJDVuTJohnsonREFryer-EdwardsKHartAJr.Theoretical foundations for interventions designed to promote informed decision making for cancer screening. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32(3):202–210.
18.
DurandMAStielMBoivinJElwynG.Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(1):125–35.
19.
PalmerSCMavridisDNicolucciAet al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and adverse events associated with glucose-lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316(3):313–24.
American Diabetes Association. 8. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(suppl 1):S73–85.
22.
American Diabetes A. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(suppl 1):S55–64.
GroupASCushmanWCEvansGWet al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. New Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1575–85.
25.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency department visit rates for hypoglycemia as first-listed diagnosis per 1,000 diabetic adults aged 18 years or older, United States, 2006–2009. 2012. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/hypoglycemia/fig5.htm. Accessed Nov 11, 2017.
26.
LeeGOhSWHwangSSet al. Comparative effectiveness of oral antidiabetic drugs in preventing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity: a network meta-analysis. PloS One. 2017;12(5):e0177646.
WangZ.Converting odds ratio to relative risk in cohort studies with partial data information. J Stat Software. 2013;55(5).
31.
BasuSSussmanJBBerkowitzSAet al. Validation of Risk Equations for Complications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (RECODe) using individual participant data from diverse longitudinal cohorts in the United States. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(3):586–95.
32.
GrantRWWexlerDJWatsonAJLesterWTNathanDM.How doctors choose medications to treat type 2 diabetes: a national survey of generalists and specialists. Diabetes. 2007;56:A307.
33.
JoySMLittleEMaruthurNMPurnellTSBridgesJF.Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.
34.
GelhornHLPoonJLDaviesEWPaczkowskiRCurtisSEBoyeKS.Evaluating preferences for profiles of GLP-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in the UK. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1611–22.
35.
MussenFSalekSWalkerS.A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines—part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:S2–15.
36.
RajalaDW.Decisions with multiple objectives—preferences and value trade-Offs—Keeney,Rl, Raiffa,H. IEEE T Syst Man Cyb. 1979;9(7):403.
37.
CoolenF.Multiple criterion decision analysis: an integrated approach. J Oper Res Soc. 2003;54(9):1019.
38.
van ValkenhoefGTervonenTZhaoJde BrockBHillegeHLPostmusD.Multicriteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(4):394–403.
39.
NaciHvan ValkenhoefGHigginsJPFleurenceRAdesAE.Evidence-based prescribing: combining network meta-analysis with multicriteria decision analysis to choose among multiple drugs. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(5):787–92.
40.
MarshKIJerzmanMThokalaPet al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making—emerging good practices: report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(2):125–37.
41.
TervonenTNaciHvan ValkenhoefGet al. Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment: choosing among statins in primary prevention. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):859–71.
42.
FranksPHanmerJFrybackDG.Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analyses. Med Care. 2006;44(5):478–85.
SalomonJAVosTHoganDRet al. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2129–43.
45.
SchellGJMarreroWJLavieriMSSussmanJBHaywardRA.Data-driven Markov decision process approximations for personalized hypertension treatment planning. MDM Policy Pract. 2016;1(1):238146831667421.
46.
SussmanJVijanSHaywardR.Using benefit-based tailored treatment to improve the use of antihypertensive medications. Circulation. 2013;128(21):2309–17.
47.
Choi SBS.Decision support tool for dual add-on therapy to metformin. Available from: https://sungchoi.shinyapps.io/code/. Accessed Mar 19, 2018.
48.
ZhengSLRoddickAJAghar-JaffarRet al. Association between use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors with all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1580–91.
MarsoSPBainSCConsoliAet al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1834–44.
51.
NealBPerkovicVMahaffeyKWet al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644–57.
52.
ZinmanBLachinJMInzucchiSE.Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(11):1094.
53.
LipkusIM.Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.
54.
HarrisonMRigbyDVassCFlynnTLouviereJPayneK.Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient. 2014;7(2):151–70.
55.
TervonenTGelhornHSri BhashyamSet al. MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(12):1483–91.
56.
VibertiGLachinJHolmanRet al. A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT): baseline characteristics of type 2 diabetic patients in North America and Europe. Diabet Med. 2006;23(12):1289–94.
57.
NathanDMBuseJBKahnSEet al. Rationale and design of the glycemia reduction approaches in diabetes: a comparative effectiveness study (GRADE). Diabetes Care. 2013;36(8):2254–61.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
