T Joseph Mattingly1, Julia F Slejko2, Eleanor M Perfetto2,3, Shyamasundaran Kottilil4, C Daniel Mullins2. 1. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, 20 North Pine Street, N415, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. jmattingly@rx.umaryland.edu. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. National Health Council, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparative evaluations of innovations in hepatitis C virus (HCV) drug therapy typically focus on sustained virologic response (SVR) without addressing psychological and socioeconomic challenges that extend beyond virologic cure. This study aims to identify and prioritize variables important to patients when making the decision to start HCV treatment. METHODS: A three-round Delphi process was conducted with the first round derived from a systematic literature review and advisory board input, including patients who have been affected by HCV, physicians, pharmacists, and a patient group representative. Delphi panelists were HCV patients who had received treatment or were considering treatment. Panelists were asked about factors influencing their HCV treatment decisions. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses based on grounded theory was used. Agreement with each category and rankings based on order of importance from the patient perspective was reported. RESULTS: Treatment effectiveness (100% agreement), longer life (88%), fear of complications (84%), financial issues (80%), quality of life (100%), and impact on society (80%) were considered important factors to patients in decisions to seek treatment. A fear of harming others (87%) was considered more important than physical symptoms (83%) in terms of patient-reported problems caused by HCV. Medication costs (91%) were identified as the most important costs of having HCV, followed by doctor costs (77%). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to treatment effectiveness, patient experiences with financial problems, quality of life, and altruistic desires impact HCV patients' decisions. The risk of infecting others may motivate patients to seek treatment as much as personally experienced physical symptoms.
OBJECTIVE: Comparative evaluations of innovations in hepatitis C virus (HCV) drug therapy typically focus on sustained virologic response (SVR) without addressing psychological and socioeconomic challenges that extend beyond virologic cure. This study aims to identify and prioritize variables important to patients when making the decision to start HCV treatment. METHODS: A three-round Delphi process was conducted with the first round derived from a systematic literature review and advisory board input, including patients who have been affected by HCV, physicians, pharmacists, and a patient group representative. Delphi panelists were HCVpatients who had received treatment or were considering treatment. Panelists were asked about factors influencing their HCV treatment decisions. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses based on grounded theory was used. Agreement with each category and rankings based on order of importance from the patient perspective was reported. RESULTS: Treatment effectiveness (100% agreement), longer life (88%), fear of complications (84%), financial issues (80%), quality of life (100%), and impact on society (80%) were considered important factors to patients in decisions to seek treatment. A fear of harming others (87%) was considered more important than physical symptoms (83%) in terms of patient-reported problems caused by HCV. Medication costs (91%) were identified as the most important costs of having HCV, followed by doctor costs (77%). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to treatment effectiveness, patient experiences with financial problems, quality of life, and altruistic desires impact HCVpatients' decisions. The risk of infecting others may motivate patients to seek treatment as much as personally experienced physical symptoms.
Authors: Andrew J Leidner; Harrell W Chesson; Philip R Spradling; Scott D Holmberg Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Darius N Lakdawalla; Jalpa A Doshi; Louis P Garrison; Charles E Phelps; Anirban Basu; Patricia M Danzon Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Karen M Clements; Robin E Clark; Pavel Lavitas; Parag Kunte; Camilla S Graham; Elizabeth O'Connell; Kimberly Lenz; Paul Jeffrey Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm Date: 2016-06
Authors: Jacqueline A Richmond; Jeanne Ellard; Jack Wallace; Rachel Thorpe; Peter Higgs; Margaret Hellard; Alexander Thompson Journal: Hepatol Med Policy Date: 2018-08-04
Authors: Karine Dubé; Kelly E Perry; Kushagra Mathur; Megan Lo; Sogol S Javadi; Hursch Patel; Susanna Concha-Garcia; Jeff Taylor; Andy Kaytes; Lynda Dee; Danielle Campbell; John Kanazawa; David Smith; Sara Gianella; Judith D Auerbach; Parya Saberi; John A Sauceda Journal: J Virus Erad Date: 2020-08-25
Authors: My Nguyen Le Thao; Yen Nguyen Thi Hong; Thuan Dang Trong; Nguyen Thanh Dung; Jeremy Day; Le Thanh Phuong; Evelyne Kestelyn; Nguyen Van Vinh Chau; Hung Le Manh; Jennifer Ilo Van Nuil Journal: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Date: 2022-12
Authors: T Joseph Mattingly; Julia F Slejko; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Eleanor M Perfetto; Shyamasundaran Kottilil; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Sydney C Yuen; Adaeze Q Amaefule; Hannah H Kim; Breanna-Verissa Owoo; Emily F Gorman; T Joseph Mattingly Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2021-08-24