OBJECTIVE: To examine preferences for treatments and health states for patients with relapsing-remitting MS and members of the community. METHODS: A survey was developed to evaluate health-related quality-of-life measures (utilities) for three treatments and six MS health states using a utility-elicitation software package, U-Titer II. Sixty-two MS patients at two large teaching hospitals in Boston, MA, and 67 members of the general community in San Diego, CA, completed the health-related quality-of-life survey using a computer. RESULTS: Assessment of quality of life decreased as disability level of MS health states increased for both respondent groups. Respondents rated less-disabled health states relatively highly (> 0.94 for patients and > 0.89 for community respondents). Quality-of-life measures for treatments in mean utilities ranged from 0.80 to 0.96. Patients assigned higher utilities for both MS health states and treatment states than community respondents; the ratings became more disparate as health states worsened. CONCLUSIONS: On average, respondents assigned utilities to currently available treatments for MS that are comparable to those of mild to moderate stages of the disease itself. These results underscore the importance of including preferences for health states and treatment alternatives in the decision to initiate treatment for individual patients or in the evaluation of effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of these treatments in patients with MS.
OBJECTIVE: To examine preferences for treatments and health states for patients with relapsing-remitting MS and members of the community. METHODS: A survey was developed to evaluate health-related quality-of-life measures (utilities) for three treatments and six MS health states using a utility-elicitation software package, U-Titer II. Sixty-two MS patients at two large teaching hospitals in Boston, MA, and 67 members of the general community in San Diego, CA, completed the health-related quality-of-life survey using a computer. RESULTS: Assessment of quality of life decreased as disability level of MS health states increased for both respondent groups. Respondents rated less-disabled health states relatively highly (> 0.94 for patients and > 0.89 for community respondents). Quality-of-life measures for treatments in mean utilities ranged from 0.80 to 0.96. Patients assigned higher utilities for both MS health states and treatment states than community respondents; the ratings became more disparate as health states worsened. CONCLUSIONS: On average, respondents assigned utilities to currently available treatments for MS that are comparable to those of mild to moderate stages of the disease itself. These results underscore the importance of including preferences for health states and treatment alternatives in the decision to initiate treatment for individual patients or in the evaluation of effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of these treatments in patients with MS.
Authors: Eve Wittenberg; Elkan Halpern; Nomia Divi; Lisa A Prosser; Sally S Araki; Jane C Weeks Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jessica C Lloyd; Talitha Yen; Ricardo Pietrobon; John S Wiener; Sherry S Ross; Paul J Kokorowski; Caleb P Nelson; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Leslie S Wilson; Aimee Loucks; Gregory Gipson; Lixian Zhong; Christine Bui; Elizabeth Miller; Mary Owen; Daniel Pelletier; Douglas Goodin; Emmanuelle Waubant; Charles E McCulloch Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2015 Mar-Apr
Authors: Natalie A Schwehr; Karen M Kuntz; Eva A Enns; Nathan D Shippee; Elaine Kingwell; Helen Tremlett; Adam F Carpenter; Mary Butler Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Kathrin S Utz; Jana Hoog; Andreas Wentrup; Sebastian Berg; Alexandra Lämmer; Britta Jainsch; Anne Waschbisch; De-Hyung Lee; Ralf A Linker; Thomas Schenk Journal: Ther Adv Neurol Disord Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.570
Authors: Ray Gani; Gavin Giovannoni; David Bates; Belinda Kemball; Steve Hughes; John Kerrigan Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.981