Christopher V Almario1,2,3,4, Michelle S Keller1,2,4,5, Michelle Chen1,2,5, Karen Lasch6, Lyann Ursos6, Julia Shklovskaya6, Gil Y Melmed3,7, Brennan M R Spiegel1,2,3,4,5. 1. Division of Health Services Research, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Division of Informatics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA. 6. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Deerfield, Illinois, USA. 7. F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel and Immunobiology Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent drug approvals have increased the availability of biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), making it difficult for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) to navigate treatment options. Here we developed a conjoint analysis to examine patient decision-making surrounding biologic medicines for IBD. We used the results to create an online patient decision aid that generates a unique "preferences report" for each patient to assist with shared decision-making with their provider. METHODS: We administered an adaptive choice-based conjoint survey to IBD patients that quantifies the relative importance of biologic attributes (e.g., efficacy, side effect profile, mode of administration, and mechanism of action) in decision making. The conjoint software determined individual patient preferences by calculating part-worth utilities for each attribute. We conducted regression analyses to determine if demographic and disease characteristics (e.g., type of IBD and severity) predicted how patients made decisions. RESULTS: 640 patients completed the survey (UC=304; CD=336). In regression analyses, demographics and IBD characteristics did not predict individual patient preferences; the main exception was IBD type. When compared to UC, CD patients were more likely to report side effect profile as most important (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-2.30). Conversely, those with UC were more likely to value therapeutic efficacy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Biologic decision-making is highly personalized; demographic and disease characteristics poorly predict individual preferences, indicating that IBD patients are unique and difficult to statistically categorize. The online decision tool resulting from this study (www.ibdandme.org) may be used by patients to support shared decision-making and optimize personalized biologic selection with their provider.
OBJECTIVES: Recent drug approvals have increased the availability of biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), making it difficult for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) to navigate treatment options. Here we developed a conjoint analysis to examine patient decision-making surrounding biologic medicines for IBD. We used the results to create an online patient decision aid that generates a unique "preferences report" for each patient to assist with shared decision-making with their provider. METHODS: We administered an adaptive choice-based conjoint survey to IBD patients that quantifies the relative importance of biologic attributes (e.g., efficacy, side effect profile, mode of administration, and mechanism of action) in decision making. The conjoint software determined individual patient preferences by calculating part-worth utilities for each attribute. We conducted regression analyses to determine if demographic and disease characteristics (e.g., type of IBD and severity) predicted how patients made decisions. RESULTS: 640 patients completed the survey (UC=304; CD=336). In regression analyses, demographics and IBD characteristics did not predict individual patient preferences; the main exception was IBD type. When compared to UC, CDpatients were more likely to report side effect profile as most important (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-2.30). Conversely, those with UC were more likely to value therapeutic efficacy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Biologic decision-making is highly personalized; demographic and disease characteristics poorly predict individual preferences, indicating that IBD patients are unique and difficult to statistically categorize. The online decision tool resulting from this study (www.ibdandme.org) may be used by patients to support shared decision-making and optimize personalized biologic selection with their provider.
Authors: Michael Clark; Jean-Frederic Colombel; Brian C Feagan; Richard N Fedorak; Stephen B Hanauer; Michael A Kamm; Lloyd Mayer; Carol Regueiro; Paul Rutgeerts; William J Sandborn; Bruce E Sands; Stefan Schreiber; Stephan Targan; Simon Travis; Severine Vermeire Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Themistocles Dassopoulos; Russell D Cohen; Ellen J Scherl; Ronald M Schwartz; Lawrence Kosinski; Miguel D Regueiro Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Brennan M R Spiegel; Ron D Hays; Roger Bolus; Gil Y Melmed; Lin Chang; Cynthia Whitman; Puja P Khanna; Sylvia H Paz; Tonya Hays; Steve Reise; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Christopher V Almario; Welmoed K van Deen; Michelle Chen; Rebecca Gale; Stéphanie Sidorkiewicz; So Yung Choi; Nirupama Bonthala; Christina Ha; Gaurav Syal; Taylor Dupuy; Xiaoyu Liu; Gil Y Melmed; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Christopher V Almario; Samuel Eberlein; Carine Khalil; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Glen S Hazlewood; Gyanendra Pokharel; Robert Deardon; Deborah A Marshall; Claire Bombardier; George Tomlinson; Christopher Ma; Cynthia H Seow; Remo Panaccione; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Woojin Joo; Christopher V Almario; Mariko Ishimori; Yujin Park; Alma Jusufagic; Benjamin Noah; Lianne S Gensler; R Swamy Venuturupalli; Jonathan Kay; Michael H Weisman; Brennan M R Spiegel Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2020-06-09