Simon Fifer1, Andrea Puig2, Vanessa Sequeira3, Mustafa Acar2, Chee H Ng4, Michelle Blanchard5, Ariana Cabrera6, James Freemantle7, Jennifer Grunfeld8. 1. Research and Innovation, Community and Patient Preference Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Real World Evidence, Janssen Australia, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Medical Affairs, Janssen Australia, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Professorial Unit, The Melbourne Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Richmond, Victoria, Australia. 5. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 6. Data Analytics and Visualisation, Community and Patient Preference Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. People Measures, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Peninsula Therapeutic & Research Group, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is evidence of improved adherence and treatment outcomes when patients' treatment preferences are considered, and shared decision making is utilized. PURPOSE: We aimed to better understand treatment preferences among Australians with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), focusing on the specific treatment attributes that people value (such as effectiveness, risk of side effects and cost) and their relative importance. The risk-benefit trade-offs that characterize treatment choices were also examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online survey of 75 patients with experience of TRD was conducted, consisting of two discrete choice experiment (DCE) components - a medication DCE and a treatment plan DCE. Participants were able to prioritize and trade off different features of medications and treatment plans. Additional questions aimed to better define this population group, which in Australia is poorly understood. RESULTS: In both DCEs, two distinct latent classes were identified. In the medication DCE, the classes were distinguished by willingness to consider new treatment alternatives. Participants in class 1 were reluctant to give up current treatment, while those in the slightly larger class 2 preferred new treatment options. In both classes, treatment effectiveness and cost were the greatest contributors to preference. Similar behavior was seen in the treatment plan DCE, with the larger class more likely to choose a new plan over their current treatment arrangement. Participants preferred medications that were low-cost, taken orally, had a high percentage improvement in mood symptoms, high rate of remission and low risk of weight gain. A similar result was found in preferences for treatment plans such that plans with the greatest effectiveness and lowest cost were most favorable. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences should routinely be considered and discussed to guide informed decisions regarding the value of new and existing medications for TRD and how they sit in the context of treatment plans.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence of improved adherence and treatment outcomes when patients' treatment preferences are considered, and shared decision making is utilized. PURPOSE: We aimed to better understand treatment preferences among Australians with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), focusing on the specific treatment attributes that people value (such as effectiveness, risk of side effects and cost) and their relative importance. The risk-benefit trade-offs that characterize treatment choices were also examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online survey of 75 patients with experience of TRD was conducted, consisting of two discrete choice experiment (DCE) components - a medication DCE and a treatment plan DCE. Participants were able to prioritize and trade off different features of medications and treatment plans. Additional questions aimed to better define this population group, which in Australia is poorly understood. RESULTS: In both DCEs, two distinct latent classes were identified. In the medication DCE, the classes were distinguished by willingness to consider new treatment alternatives. Participants in class 1 were reluctant to give up current treatment, while those in the slightly larger class 2 preferred new treatment options. In both classes, treatment effectiveness and cost were the greatest contributors to preference. Similar behavior was seen in the treatment plan DCE, with the larger class more likely to choose a new plan over their current treatment arrangement. Participants preferred medications that were low-cost, taken orally, had a high percentage improvement in mood symptoms, high rate of remission and low risk of weight gain. A similar result was found in preferences for treatment plans such that plans with the greatest effectiveness and lowest cost were most favorable. CONCLUSION: Patient preferences should routinely be considered and discussed to guide informed decisions regarding the value of new and existing medications for TRD and how they sit in the context of treatment plans.
Authors: Thomas M Zimmermann; Johannes Clouth; Michael Elosge; Matthias Heurich; Edith Schneider; Stefan Wilhelm; Anette Wolfrath Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Gregory M Chandler; Dan V Iosifescu; Mark H Pollack; Steven D Targum; Maurizio Fava Journal: CNS Neurosci Ther Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.243
Authors: F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Simon Fifer; Brittany Keen; Richard Newton; Andrea Puig; Marija McGeachie Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 2.314