Literature DB >> 24968998

Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors.

Phaedra Johnson1, Tim Bancroft2, Richard Barron3, Jason Legg3, Xiaoyan Li3, Holly Watson3, Arash Naeim4, Angela Watkins2, Deborah A Marshall5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Rising out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients have increased shared decision making. Clinical guidelines recommend prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients receiving chemotherapy with a 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to explore breast cancer patients' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for prophylactic G-CSF to decrease the risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.
METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment questionnaire survey of a national US convenience sample of self-reported breast cancer patients with prior chemotherapy treatment was conducted. Sixteen paired G-CSF treatment scenarios, each with four attributes (risk of disruption to chemotherapy schedule due to low white blood cell counts, risk of developing an infection requiring hospitalization, frequency of administration, and total out-of-pocket cost) were presented with a follow-up "no treatment" option. Participant preferences and WTP out of pocket were estimated by logistic regression.
RESULTS: Participants (n = 296) preferred G-CSF regimens with lower out-of-pocket costs, lower risk of chemotherapy disruption, lower risk of infection, and greater convenience (one G-CSF injection per chemotherapy cycle). Participants' WTP was $1076 out of pocket per cycle to reduce the risk (high to low) of disrupting their chemotherapy schedule, $884 per cycle to reduce the risk (24% [high] to 7% [low]) of infection, and $851 per cycle to decrease the number of G-CSF injections (11 to 1) per cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants highly valued specific features of prophylactic G-CSF treatment including maintaining their chemotherapy schedule, lowering their risk of infection, and reducing the number of injections. Physicians should consider patient preferences to inform the best treatment choices for individual patients.
Copyright © 2014 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Internet survey; breast cancer; discrete choice experiment; filgrastim; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; oncology; patient preferences; pegfilgrastim; willingness to pay

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24968998     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.002

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


  13 in total

1.  Chemotherapy-associated treatment burden in breast cancer patients receiving lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: secondary efficacy data from a phase III study.

Authors:  Oleg A Gladkov; Anton Buchner; Peter Bias; Udo Müller; Reiner Elsässer
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alene Sze Jing Yong; Yi Heng Lim; Mark Wing Loong Cheong; Ednin Hamzah; Siew Li Teoh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-12-02

3.  Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kelly L Stoner; Helena Harder; Lesley J Fallowfield; Valerie A Jenkins
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014-07-12       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments.

Authors:  Hannah Collacott; Vikas Soekhai; Caitlin Thomas; Anne Brooks; Ella Brookes; Rachel Lo; Sarah Mulnick; Sebastian Heidenreich
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Patient preferences for first-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma: a US survey and discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Niloufer Khan; Joseph Feliciano; Kerstin Müller; Mary He; Rei Tao; Ellen Korol; Mehul Dalal; Mayvis Rebeira; Matthew Matasar
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2020-07-20

Review 6.  Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Daniela R Bien; Marion Danner; Vera Vennedey; Daniele Civello; Silvia M Evers; Mickaël Hiligsmann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Patient preference and choice of healthcare providers in Shanghai, China: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Wenya Yu; Meina Li; Feng Ye; Chen Xue; Lulu Zhang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Cost-Utility Analysis of Lipegfilgrastim Compared to Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia in Patients with Stage II-IV Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Esse I H Akpo; Irshaad R Jansen; Edith Maes; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 5.810

9.  Patients' preferences and willingness-to-pay for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments after failure of standard treatments.

Authors:  Surachat Ngorsuraches; Klangjai Thongkeaw
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2015-11-05

10.  A Comparative Study on Willingness to Pay for Breast Cancer and Osteoporosis Screening in Kerman, Southeastern Iran.

Authors:  Asma Sabermahani; Sedighe Mohammad Taghizade; Reza Goodarzi
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.429

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.