Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36422822›Full record

ArticleNeurology and therapy2023

Treatment Preference for Alzheimer's Disease: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis with Caregivers, Neurologists, and Payors.

George Dranitsaris, Quanwu Zhang, Alex Quill, Lin Mu, Christopher Weyrer, Erik Dysdale, Peter Neumann, Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

George DranitsarisDepartment of Public Health, Falk College, Syracuse University, 150 Crouse Dr, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA. george.dranitsaris@gmail.com.
Quanwu ZhangEisai, Inc., Nutley, NJ, USA.
Alex QuillBoston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, USA.
Lin MuBoston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, USA.
Christopher WeyrerBoston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, USA.
Erik DysdaleBoston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, USA.
Peter NeumannCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Amir Abbas Tahami MonfaredEisai, Inc., Nutley, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlzheimer's disease (AD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disorder associated with a high burden of illness. New therapies under development include agents that target amyloid-beta (Aβ), a key component in AD pathogenesis. Understanding the decision-making process for new AD drugs would help determine if such therapies should be adopted by society. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to three key stakeholder groups to assess treatment alternatives for AD based on a multitude of decision trade-offs covering main components of care.

methodsAD caregivers (n = 117), neurologists (n = 90), and payors (n = 90) from the USA received an online survey. The decision problem was broken down into four decision criterion and 12 subcriteria for two treatment scenarios: an Aβ-targeted therapy vs. the standard of care (SOC). Respondents were asked to indicate how much they preferred one option over another on a scale from 1 (equal preference) to 9 (high preference) based on each criterion and subcriterion. The decision criteria and subcriteria were weighted and presented as partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference for that decision-making component.

resultsCaregivers and payors applied the highest value to need for intervention (mean pUS = 0.303 and 0.259) and clinical outcomes (mean pUS = 0.286 and 0.377). In contrast, neurologists placed the highest value on clinical outcomes and types of benefits (mean pUS = 0.436 and 0.248). When decision subcriteria were examined, efficacy (mean pUS = 0.115, 0.219, and 0.166) and the type of patient benefits (mean pUS = 0.135, 0.178, and 0.126) were among the most valued by caregivers, neurologists, and payors.

conclusionAll groups placed the highest value on drug efficacy and types of benefit derived by patients. In contrast, cost implications were among the least important aspects in their decision-making.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseCaregiver preferenceMulticriteria decision analysisPhysician preference

Identifiers

PMID36422822
PMCPMC9837350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.