Literature DB >> 18980634

Estimating the Danish populations' preferences for pharmacogenetic testing using a discrete choice experiment. The case of treating depression.

Louise Herbild1, Mickael Bech, Dorte Gyrd-Hansen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for pharmacogenetic testing in the treatment of depression.
METHODS: In a web-based discrete choice questionnaire, four attributes were included: 1) number of changes in antidepressants before symptom relief; 2) time with dosage adjustments due to adverse side effects and/or lack of effects; 3) cost of pharmacogenetic testing; 4) probability of benefits from pharmacogenetic testing. Respondents were asked to choose between two scenarios; 1) pharmacogenetic testing; and 2) an opt-out option reflecting a scenario without pharmacogenetic testing. The indirect utility model was assumed to be multiplicative in probability of benefits and reduced time with dosage adjustments as well as reduced number of antidepressant changes.
RESULTS: Most coefficients had the expected signs and were statistically significant. WTP for avoidance of one change in antidepressant medication is 1571 Danish Krone (DKK), whereas WTP for reducing the period with dosage-adjustments by 1 month is DKK604. Both were statistically significantly different from zero.
CONCLUSION: If diagnosed with depression, peoples' WTP for pharmacogenetic testing appears to exceed its price as long as there is a reasonable probability for improvements in treatment (in the present case 10%). Utility is associated with outcomes only. Hence, other modes of provision of similar improvements in treatment may be valued equally highly. WTP estimates and the associated policy implications appear to be robust because they were unaffected by estimation model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18980634     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00465.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  13 in total

1.  Abandoning personalization to get to precision in the pharmacotherapy of depression.

Authors:  Roy H Perlis
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 49.548

2.  Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes.

Authors:  Carlos J Gallego; Caroline S Bennette; Patrick Heagerty; Bryan Comstock; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki Hisama; Laura M Amendola; Robin L Bennett; Michael O Dorschner; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; William M Grady; S Malia Fullerton; Susan B Trinidad; Dean A Regier; Deborah A Nickerson; Wylie Burke; Donald L Patrick; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  The price of whole-genome sequencing may be decreasing, but who will be sequenced?

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Karen V MacDonald; Jill Oliver Robinson; Lisa F Barcellos; Milena Gianfrancesco; Monica Helm; Amy McGuire; Robert C Green; Michael P Douglas; Michael A Goldman; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis on Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Semra Ozdemir; Jia Jia Lee; Isha Chaudhry; Remee Rose Quintana Ocampo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Have preferences of girls changed almost 3 years after the much debated start of the HPV vaccination program in The Netherlands? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Robine Hofman; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Jan Hendrik Richardus; Harry J de Koning; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Ida J Korfage
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Patients' Preferences for Genomic Diagnostic Testing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  James Buchanan; Sarah Wordsworth; Anna Schuh
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value--development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT).

Authors:  Caroline Savage Bennette; Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Donald Patrick; Laura Amendola; Wylie Burke; Fuki M Hisama; Gail P Jarvik; Dean A Regier; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Men's preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  E W de Bekker-Grob; J M Rose; B Donkers; M-L Essink-Bot; C H Bangma; E W Steyerberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  The Role of Patients' Age on Their Preferences for Choosing Additional Blood Pressure-Lowering Drugs: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Diabetes.

Authors:  Sieta T de Vries; Folgerdiena M de Vries; Thijs Dekker; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Dick de Zeeuw; Adelita V Ranchor; Petra Denig
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Women's Preferences for Treatment of Perinatal Depression and Anxiety: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Jemimah Ride; Emily Lancsar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.