BACKGROUND: Timely individualized treatment is essential to improving relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patient health outcomes, yet little is known about how patients make treatment decisions. We sought to evaluate RRMS patient preferences for risks and benefits of treatment. METHODS: Fifty patients with RRMS completed conjoint analysis surveys with 16 hypothetical disease-modifying therapy (DMT) medication profiles developed using a fractional factorial design. Medication profiles were assigned preference ratings from 0 (not acceptable) to 10 (most favorable). Medication attributes included a range of benefits, adverse effects, administration routes, and market durations. Analytical models used linear mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: Participants showed the highest preference for medication profiles that would improve their symptoms (β = 0.81-1.03, P < .001), not a proven DMT outcome. Preventing relapses, the main clinical trial outcome, was not associated with significant preferences (P = .35). Each year of preventing magnetic resonance imaging changes and disease symptom progression showed DMT preferences of 0.17 point (β = 0.17, P = .002) and 0.12 point (β = 0.12, P < .001), respectively. Daily oral administration was preferred over all parenteral routes (P < .001). A 1% increase in death or severe disability decreased relative DMT preference by 1.15 points (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference focused on symptoms and prevention of progression but not on relapse prevention, the proven drug outcome. Patients were willing to accept some level of serious risk for certain types and amounts of benefits, and they strongly preferred daily oral administration over all other options.
BACKGROUND: Timely individualized treatment is essential to improving relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patient health outcomes, yet little is known about how patients make treatment decisions. We sought to evaluate RRMS patient preferences for risks and benefits of treatment. METHODS: Fifty patients with RRMS completed conjoint analysis surveys with 16 hypothetical disease-modifying therapy (DMT) medication profiles developed using a fractional factorial design. Medication profiles were assigned preference ratings from 0 (not acceptable) to 10 (most favorable). Medication attributes included a range of benefits, adverse effects, administration routes, and market durations. Analytical models used linear mixed-effects regression. RESULTS:Participants showed the highest preference for medication profiles that would improve their symptoms (β = 0.81-1.03, P < .001), not a proven DMT outcome. Preventing relapses, the main clinical trial outcome, was not associated with significant preferences (P = .35). Each year of preventing magnetic resonance imaging changes and disease symptom progression showed DMT preferences of 0.17 point (β = 0.17, P = .002) and 0.12 point (β = 0.12, P < .001), respectively. Daily oral administration was preferred over all parenteral routes (P < .001). A 1% increase in death or severe disability decreased relative DMT preference by 1.15 points (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patient preference focused on symptoms and prevention of progression but not on relapse prevention, the proven drug outcome. Patients were willing to accept some level of serious risk for certain types and amounts of benefits, and they strongly preferred daily oral administration over all other options.
Authors: Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson Journal: Patient Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Ernst-Wilhelm Radue; Paul O'Connor; Chris Polman; Reinhard Hohlfeld; Peter Calabresi; Krzysztof Selmaj; Catherine Agoropoulou; Malgorzata Leyk; Lixin Zhang-Auberson; Pascale Burtin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bhuvaneswari Ramkumar; Manpreet K Chadha; Maurice Barcos; Sheila N J Sait; Meyer R Heyman; Maria R Baer Journal: Cancer Genet Cytogenet Date: 2008-04-15
Authors: C Ford; A D Goodman; K Johnson; N Kachuck; J W Lindsey; R Lisak; C Luzzio; L Myers; H Panitch; J Preiningerova; A Pruitt; J Rose; H Rus; J Wolinsky Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskyte; Natalie King; Naila Dracup; Jeremy Chataway; Helen L Ford; Joachim Marti; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano Journal: Patient Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Larry D Lynd; Anthony Traboulsee; Carlo A Marra; Nicole Mittmann; Charity Evans; Kathy H Li; Melanie Carter; Celestin Hategekimana Journal: Ther Adv Neurol Disord Date: 2016-05-15 Impact factor: 6.570
Authors: Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskytė; Helen L Ford; Hilary L Bekker; Jeremy Chataway; George Pepper; Joachim Marti; Yasmina Okan; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano Journal: Patient Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.883