帕斯卡不确定性原则:在风险不明确的情况下管理药物-药物相互作用

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Philip D. Hansten Pharm.D., Ainhoa Gomez-Lumbreras M.D., Ph.D., Lorenzo Villa-Zapata Ph.D., Daniel C. Malone Ph.D.
{"title":"帕斯卡不确定性原则:在风险不明确的情况下管理药物-药物相互作用","authors":"Philip D. Hansten Pharm.D.,&nbsp;Ainhoa Gomez-Lumbreras M.D., Ph.D.,&nbsp;Lorenzo Villa-Zapata Ph.D.,&nbsp;Daniel C. Malone Ph.D.","doi":"10.1002/jac5.2031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Therapeutic decision-making (TDM) often occurs under conditions of scientific uncertainty, including decisions on how to manage the majority of drug–drug interactions (DDIs). The existence of many DDIs is not firmly established, and there is an unfortunate tendency to make decisions based on the binary assessment of whether or not a particular DDI is real, rather than taking a more probabilistic and holistic approach to TDM. There also seems to be an undue fear of making a Type I error (assuming the DDI is real when it is not) while ignoring the often much greater risk of a Type II error (assuming the DDI is not real, when it is). Thus, a more rational TDM process for such DDIs is needed. In his famous “Wager,” philosopher-mathematician Blaise Pascal made a probabilistic argument for believing in God. Instead of considering probability in isolation, Pascal <i>linked</i> the probability of God's existence with the severity of the outcome (an eternity in Hell for non-believers) and also added a third factor—the ease with which the risk can be avoided. We propose a novel paradigm for TDM that uses all three of Pascal's steps: probability, severity, and avoidability. We present several specific DDI examples to demonstrate how Pascal's Uncertainty Principle can help pharmacists make clinical management decisions for these DDIs. We suggest that this process be called “Pascal's Uncertainty Principle” rather than “Pascal's Wager,” because it can be used to make rational decisions in the presence of uncertainty in many non-theological situations. This process reinforces the value of philosophical training for pharmacy students.</p>","PeriodicalId":73966,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","volume":"7 12","pages":"1197-1206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jac5.2031","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pascal's uncertainty principle: Managing drug–drug interactions when the risks are unclear\",\"authors\":\"Philip D. Hansten Pharm.D.,&nbsp;Ainhoa Gomez-Lumbreras M.D., Ph.D.,&nbsp;Lorenzo Villa-Zapata Ph.D.,&nbsp;Daniel C. Malone Ph.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jac5.2031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Therapeutic decision-making (TDM) often occurs under conditions of scientific uncertainty, including decisions on how to manage the majority of drug–drug interactions (DDIs). The existence of many DDIs is not firmly established, and there is an unfortunate tendency to make decisions based on the binary assessment of whether or not a particular DDI is real, rather than taking a more probabilistic and holistic approach to TDM. There also seems to be an undue fear of making a Type I error (assuming the DDI is real when it is not) while ignoring the often much greater risk of a Type II error (assuming the DDI is not real, when it is). Thus, a more rational TDM process for such DDIs is needed. In his famous “Wager,” philosopher-mathematician Blaise Pascal made a probabilistic argument for believing in God. Instead of considering probability in isolation, Pascal <i>linked</i> the probability of God's existence with the severity of the outcome (an eternity in Hell for non-believers) and also added a third factor—the ease with which the risk can be avoided. We propose a novel paradigm for TDM that uses all three of Pascal's steps: probability, severity, and avoidability. We present several specific DDI examples to demonstrate how Pascal's Uncertainty Principle can help pharmacists make clinical management decisions for these DDIs. We suggest that this process be called “Pascal's Uncertainty Principle” rather than “Pascal's Wager,” because it can be used to make rational decisions in the presence of uncertainty in many non-theological situations. This process reinforces the value of philosophical training for pharmacy students.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"volume\":\"7 12\",\"pages\":\"1197-1206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jac5.2031\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.2031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.2031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

治疗决策(TDM)经常发生在科学不确定的条件下,包括如何管理大多数药物-药物相互作用(ddi)的决策。许多DDI的存在并没有牢固地建立起来,并且有一种不幸的趋势,即根据对特定DDI是否真实的二元评估来做出决策,而不是对TDM采取更有概率性和整体性的方法。似乎还存在一种对犯第一类错误的过度恐惧(假设DDI是真实的,而不是真实的),而忽略了通常更大的第二类错误风险(假设DDI不是真实的,当它是真实的)。因此,需要一个更合理的ddi TDM流程。在他著名的“打赌”中,哲学家兼数学家布莱兹·帕斯卡(Blaise Pascal)为相信上帝做了一个概率论证。帕斯卡没有孤立地考虑概率,而是将上帝存在的概率与结果的严重性(非信徒将永远在地狱里)联系起来,并增加了第三个因素——风险可以轻易避免。我们提出了一种新的TDM范例,它使用了帕斯卡的所有三个步骤:概率、严重性和可避免性。我们提出了几个具体的DDI例子来证明帕斯卡的不确定性原理如何帮助药剂师为这些DDI做出临床管理决策。我们建议将这个过程称为“帕斯卡的不确定性原理”而不是“帕斯卡的赌注”,因为它可以用于在许多非神学情况下的不确定性中做出理性的决定。这个过程强化了哲学训练对药学学生的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Pascal's uncertainty principle: Managing drug–drug interactions when the risks are unclear

Pascal's uncertainty principle: Managing drug–drug interactions when the risks are unclear

Therapeutic decision-making (TDM) often occurs under conditions of scientific uncertainty, including decisions on how to manage the majority of drug–drug interactions (DDIs). The existence of many DDIs is not firmly established, and there is an unfortunate tendency to make decisions based on the binary assessment of whether or not a particular DDI is real, rather than taking a more probabilistic and holistic approach to TDM. There also seems to be an undue fear of making a Type I error (assuming the DDI is real when it is not) while ignoring the often much greater risk of a Type II error (assuming the DDI is not real, when it is). Thus, a more rational TDM process for such DDIs is needed. In his famous “Wager,” philosopher-mathematician Blaise Pascal made a probabilistic argument for believing in God. Instead of considering probability in isolation, Pascal linked the probability of God's existence with the severity of the outcome (an eternity in Hell for non-believers) and also added a third factor—the ease with which the risk can be avoided. We propose a novel paradigm for TDM that uses all three of Pascal's steps: probability, severity, and avoidability. We present several specific DDI examples to demonstrate how Pascal's Uncertainty Principle can help pharmacists make clinical management decisions for these DDIs. We suggest that this process be called “Pascal's Uncertainty Principle” rather than “Pascal's Wager,” because it can be used to make rational decisions in the presence of uncertainty in many non-theological situations. This process reinforces the value of philosophical training for pharmacy students.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信