Literature DB >> 27461538

Assessing the Value of Treatment to Address Various Symptoms Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: Results from a Contingent Valuation Study.

Pei-Jung Lin1, Cayla J Saret2, Peter J Neumann2, Eileen A Sandberg2, Joshua T Cohen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although it is well recognized that people with multiple sclerosis (MS) may experience impairments in addition to limited mobility, there has been little effort to study their relative importance to patients with the condition. The objective of this study was to assess patient preferences for addressing various MS symptoms.
METHODS: This study was conducted at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. We developed a national online survey of MS patients and neurologists to estimate the value each group places on treating specific MS symptoms. Each respondent was presented with two randomly selected scenarios with different symptoms and treatments. MS patients were asked about their own preferences, whereas neurologists were asked to consider what a patient of theirs would do or think in each scenario. We used a bidding game approach to elicit respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for the treatments.
RESULTS: To treat mobility alone, WTP for MS patients averaged US$410-US$520 per month, depending on the scenario. For paired symptoms, MS patients would pay most to treat mobility and upper limb function (US$525/month) or mobility and cognition (US$514/month), somewhat less to treat mobility and eyesight (US$445/month), and least to treat mobility and fatigue (US$371/month). Patient WTP values increased with income and education. Neurologists believed their patients would be willing to pay US$216-US$249 per month to treat mobility alone, depending on the scenario. For paired symptoms, neurologists believed patients would pay most to treat mobility and fatigue (US$263/month) and least to treat mobility and upper limb function (US$177/month).
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest MS patients may value one outcome (e.g., improved arm and hand coordination) over another (e.g., less fatigue). Further, MS patients and neurologists may rank the importance of treating various symptoms differently. Given this potential mismatch, it is crucial for MS patients and their clinicians to discuss treatment priorities that take into account patient preferences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27461538     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0435-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  40 in total

1.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update.

Authors:  Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  Willingness to pay for diagnostic technologies: a review of the contingent valuation literature.

Authors:  Pei-Jung Lin; Michael J Cangelosi; David W Lee; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Natural history of multiple sclerosis symptoms.

Authors:  Ilya Kister; Tamar E Bacon; Eric Chamot; Amber R Salter; Gary R Cutter; Jennifer T Kalina; Joseph Herbert
Journal:  Int J MS Care       Date:  2013

Review 4.  Established and novel disease-modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  A H Cross; R T Naismith
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 8.989

5.  The association between cognitive impairment and quality of life in patients with early multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Bonnie I Glanz; Brian C Healy; David J Rintell; Sharon K Jaffin; Rohit Bakshi; Howard L Weiner
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 3.181

6.  From policy to patients and back: surgical treatment decision making for patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Persistent visual impairment in multiple sclerosis: prevalence, mechanisms and resulting disability.

Authors:  Laurence Jasse; Sandra Vukusic; Françoise Durand-Dubief; Cristina Vartin; Carolina Piras; Martine Bernard; Denis Pélisson; Christian Confavreux; Alain Vighetto; Caroline Tilikete
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 6.312

Review 8.  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

9.  Social and economic burden of walking and mobility problems in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  James Pike; Edward Jones; Krithika Rajagopalan; James Piercy; Peter Anderson
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 2.474

10.  Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Peter Zweifel; Anika Kaczynski; F Reed Johnson
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2016-01-29
View more
  3 in total

1.  The costs of celiac disease: a contingent valuation in Switzerland.

Authors:  Laia Soler; Nicolas Borzykowski
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-10-07

2.  White Students' Perceptions of the Costs and Consequences of Being Black.

Authors:  M Lyn Exum
Journal:  Race Soc Probl       Date:  2022-04-17

3.  Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies.

Authors:  Hiba El Masri; Treasure M McGuire; Christine Dalais; Mieke van Driel; Helen Benham; Samantha A Hollingworth
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2022-04-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.