Literature DB >> 25903666

How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Nick Bansback1, Logan Trenaman, Mark Harrison.   

Abstract

Many new drugs do not offer clinical benefits over existing treatments but provide potentially more convenient modes of administration. These include how frequently a treatment is given, how it is delivered, who gives the treatment, and whether there are any associated local adverse reactions. We reviewed studies in rheumatology that ask patients and society the value they assign to these aspects of treatment in comparison to the benefits and side effects and costs. We find that mode of administration is generally valued by both patients and society, but the extent depends on the context of the disease and the study participants. Respondents with a more severe disease seem to assign less value to mode and frequency of administration, and prioritize improvement in pain and function. However, patients with chronic, but less severe, disease seem to place greater value on mode of administration. Furthermore, respondents with experience of the treatments perceived to be more inconvenient assigned lower value to more convenient treatments. Unfortunately, we found few examples of studies that reported values in a format that could easily be incorporated into resource allocation decisions by payers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25903666     DOI: 10.1007/s11926-015-0514-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3774            Impact factor:   4.592


  30 in total

1.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C Donaldson; P Shackley
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Impact of medication adherence on hospitalization risk and healthcare cost.

Authors:  Michael C Sokol; Kimberly A McGuigan; Robert R Verbrugge; Robert S Epstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Patients' beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness.

Authors:  R Horne; J Weinman
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.006

5.  Whose preferences count?

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1999 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Willem Jan Meerding; Bart W Koes; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  If You Want Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis (OA) to Exercise: Tell them about NSAIDS.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Terri Fried
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Understanding preferences for disease-modifying drugs in osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Lisa Suter; Charles E Cunningham; Gillian Hawker
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.794

Review 9.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Mandy Ryan; Karen Gerard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-19       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the MEdication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS).

Authors:  Tracey-Lea Laba; Jo-anne Brien; Marlene Fransen; Stephen Jan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  4 in total

1.  OMERACT Quality-adjusted Life-years (QALY) Working Group: Do Current QALY Measures Capture What Matters to Patients?

Authors:  Logan Trenaman; Annelies Boonen; Francis Guillemin; Mickael Hiligsmann; Alison Hoens; Carlo Marra; Will Taylor; Jennifer Barton; Peter Tugwell; George Wells; Nick Bansback
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.666

2.  Patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Mickaël Hiligsmann; Benedict G Dellaert; Carmen D Dirksen; Verity Watson; Sandrine Bours; Stefan Goemaere; Jean-Yves Reginster; Christian Roux; Bernie McGowan; Carmel Silke; Bryan Whelan; Adolfo Diez-Perez; Elisa Torres; Georgios Papadakis; Rene Rizzoli; Cyrus Cooper; Gill Pearson; Annelies Boonen
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 7.580

3.  Patient preferences for treatment of multiple sclerosis with disease-modifying therapies: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  José Manuel Garcia-Dominguez; Delicias Muñoz; Marta Comellas; Irmina Gonzalbo; Luis Lizán; Carlos Polanco Sánchez
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 4.  A Review of Patient Preferences for Osteoporosis Drug Treatment.

Authors:  Mickaël Hiligsmann; Sandrine P G Bours; Annelies Boonen
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.592

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.