Literature DB >> 15020312

Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

L Fraenkel1, S T Bogardus, J Concato, D T Felson, D R Wittink.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To elicit treatment preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with varying risk profiles.
METHODS: Patient values for 16 DMARD characteristics were ascertained using published data about side effects, effectiveness, and cost. Patient preferences were determined by Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, an interactive computer program that predicts preferences by asking patients to make trade-offs between specific treatment characteristics. Simulations were run to derive preferences for four drugs: methotrexate, gold, leflunomide, and etanercept, under different risk-benefit scenarios. Infliximab was not included because it is given with methotrexate, and we did not include preferences for combination therapy. Based on each patient's expressed preferences, and the characteristics of the treatments available at the time of the study, the option that best fitted each patient's perspective was identified.
RESULTS: 120 patients (mean age 70 years) were interviewed. For the base case scenario (which assumed the maximum benefits reported in the literature, a low probability of adverse effects, and low equal monthly "co-pays" (out of pocket costs)), 95% of the respondents preferred etanercept over the other treatment options. When all four options were described as being equally effective, 88% continued to prefer etanercept owing to its safer short term adverse effect profile. Increasing etanercept's co-pay to $30.00 decreased the percentage of patients preferring this option to 80%.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, older patients with RA, when asked to consider trade-offs between specific risk and benefits, preferred etanercept over other treatment options. Preference for etanercept is explained by older patients' risk aversion for drug toxicity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15020312      PMCID: PMC1754807          DOI: 10.1136/ard.2003.019422

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis        ISSN: 0003-4967            Impact factor:   19.103


  19 in total

1.  A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  J M Bathon; R W Martin; R M Fleischmann; J R Tesser; M H Schiff; E C Keystone; M C Genovese; M C Wasko; L W Moreland; A L Weaver; J Markenson; B K Finck
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care.

Authors:  M Ryan; E McIntosh; P Shackley
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Safety, efficacy, and mortality in a long-term cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking methotrexate: followup after a mean of 13.3 years.

Authors:  J M Kremer
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1997-05

4.  Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group.

Authors:  V Strand; S Cohen; M Schiff; A Weaver; R Fleischmann; G Cannon; R Fox; L Moreland; N Olsen; D Furst; J Caldwell; J Kaine; J Sharp; F Hurley; I Loew-Friedrich
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1999-11-22

5.  Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein.

Authors:  L W Moreland; S W Baumgartner; M H Schiff; E A Tindall; R M Fleischmann; A L Weaver; R E Ettlinger; S Cohen; W J Koopman; K Mohler; M B Widmer; C M Blosch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-07-17       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions.

Authors:  J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and histopathologic features of methotrexate-associated lung injury in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter study with literature review.

Authors:  J M Kremer; G S Alarcón; M E Weinblatt; M V Kaymakcian; M Macaluso; G W Cannon; W R Palmer; J S Sundy; E W St Clair; R W Alexander; G J Smith; C A Axiotis
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1997-10

8.  What do patients and rheumatologists regard as an 'acceptable' risk in the treatment of rheumatic disease?

Authors:  T Pullar; V Wright; M Feely
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1990-06

9.  Use of short-term efficacy/toxicity tradeoffs to select second-line drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. A metaanalysis of published clinical trials.

Authors:  D T Felson; J J Anderson; R F Meenan
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1992-10

10.  The risk of treatment. A study of rheumatoid arthritis patients' attitudes.

Authors:  M Ho; B Lavery; T Pullar
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1998-04
View more
  40 in total

1.  Impact of educational and patient decision aids on decisional conflict associated with total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sofia de Achaval; Liana Fraenkel; Robert J Volk; Vanessa Cox; Maria E Suarez-Almazor
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.794

2.  Adherence of rheumatoid arthritis patients to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Natalia Mena-Vazquez; Sara Manrique-Arija; Lucía Yunquera-Romero; Inmaculada Ureña-Garnica; Marta Rojas-Gimenez; Carla Domic; Francisco Gabriel Jimenez-Nuñez; Antonio Fernandez-Nebro
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.631

3.  What do Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis value in treatment? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kerrie-Anne Ho; Mustafa Acar; Andrea Puig; Gabor Hutas; Simon Fifer
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change.

Authors:  Jos Hendrikx; Jaap Fransen; Wietske Kievit; Piet L C M van Riel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Barbara Gulanski; Dick Wittink
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-10-15

Review 6.  Use of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: current and emerging paradigms of care.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Curtis; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  Clin Ther       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.393

7.  Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Ellen Peters; Peter Charpentier; Blair Olsen; Lanette Errante; Robert T Schoen; Valerie Reyna
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.794

8.  Impact of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 on utilization and spending for medicare part B-covered biologics in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Jalpa A Doshi; Pengxiang Li; Andrea Puig
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.794

9.  Patient Preferences Regarding Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapies: A Conjoint Analysis.

Authors:  Anthony M Louder; Amitabh Singh; Kim Saverno; Joseph C Cappelleri; Aaron J Aten; Andrew S Koenig; Margaret K Pasquale
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2016-04

10.  Patient preferences and satisfaction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic therapy.

Authors:  Jennifer L Barton
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2009-11-29       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.