Limits...
Patient and parent preferences for characteristics of prophylactic treatment in hemophilia.

Furlan R, Krishnan S, Vietri J - Patient Prefer Adherence (2015)

Bottom Line: Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment.The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences.Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Advanced Methods, Kantar Health, Epsom, Surrey, UK.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: New longer-acting factor products will potentially allow for less frequent infusion in prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. However, the role of administration frequency relative to other treatment attributes in determining preferences for prophylactic hemophilia treatment regimens is not well understood.

Aim: To identify the relative importance of frequency of administration, efficacy, and other treatment characteristics among candidates for prophylactic treatment for hemophilia A and B.

Method: An Internet survey was conducted among hemophilia patients and the parents of pediatric hemophilia patients in Australia, Canada, and the US. A monadic conjoint task was included in the survey, which varied frequency of administration (three, two, or one time per week for hemophilia A; twice weekly, weekly, or biweekly for hemophilia B), efficacy (no bleeding or breakthrough bleeding once every 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months), diluent volume (3 mL vs 2.5 mL for hemophilia A; 5 mL vs 3 mL for hemophilia B), vials per infusion (2 vs 1), reconstitution device (assembly required vs not), and manufacturer (established in hemophilia vs not). Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment. Respondents were told to assume that other aspects of treatment, such as risk of inhibitor development, cost, and method of distribution, would remain the same.

Results: A total of 89 patients and/or parents of children with hemophilia A participated; another 32 were included in the exercise for hemophilia B. Relative importance was 47%, 24%, and 18% for frequency of administration, efficacy, and manufacturer, respectively, in hemophilia A; analogous values were 48%, 26%, and 21% in hemophilia B. The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences.

Conclusion: Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Sample treatment option and response scale for rating task.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664548&req=5

f1-ppa-9-1687: Sample treatment option and response scale for rating task.

Mentions: Treatment options were presented to respondents according to a monadic approach (one-at-a-time) as in Figure 1. Respondents were asked to assess the likelihood to switch from the current treatment to each hypothetical treatment profile using a rating scale from 0% (“not at all likely”) to 100% (“extremely likely”). This design was selected over a discrete choice experiment where respondents choose between two or more alternatives to more closely reflect the nature of the treatment decision for these respondents, as all patients were currently treated and new treatment options would likely be evaluated relative to their current regimen rather than against another alternative. The use of a monadic task also had the benefit of lower respondent burden as respondents were required to read and understand only one treatment at a time rather than two or more, and use of a scale allowed for the expressions of finer-grained distinctions between options than relying on binary switch versus do not switch decisions.


Patient and parent preferences for characteristics of prophylactic treatment in hemophilia.

Furlan R, Krishnan S, Vietri J - Patient Prefer Adherence (2015)

Sample treatment option and response scale for rating task.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664548&req=5

f1-ppa-9-1687: Sample treatment option and response scale for rating task.
Mentions: Treatment options were presented to respondents according to a monadic approach (one-at-a-time) as in Figure 1. Respondents were asked to assess the likelihood to switch from the current treatment to each hypothetical treatment profile using a rating scale from 0% (“not at all likely”) to 100% (“extremely likely”). This design was selected over a discrete choice experiment where respondents choose between two or more alternatives to more closely reflect the nature of the treatment decision for these respondents, as all patients were currently treated and new treatment options would likely be evaluated relative to their current regimen rather than against another alternative. The use of a monadic task also had the benefit of lower respondent burden as respondents were required to read and understand only one treatment at a time rather than two or more, and use of a scale allowed for the expressions of finer-grained distinctions between options than relying on binary switch versus do not switch decisions.

Bottom Line: Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment.The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences.Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Advanced Methods, Kantar Health, Epsom, Surrey, UK.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: New longer-acting factor products will potentially allow for less frequent infusion in prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. However, the role of administration frequency relative to other treatment attributes in determining preferences for prophylactic hemophilia treatment regimens is not well understood.

Aim: To identify the relative importance of frequency of administration, efficacy, and other treatment characteristics among candidates for prophylactic treatment for hemophilia A and B.

Method: An Internet survey was conducted among hemophilia patients and the parents of pediatric hemophilia patients in Australia, Canada, and the US. A monadic conjoint task was included in the survey, which varied frequency of administration (three, two, or one time per week for hemophilia A; twice weekly, weekly, or biweekly for hemophilia B), efficacy (no bleeding or breakthrough bleeding once every 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months), diluent volume (3 mL vs 2.5 mL for hemophilia A; 5 mL vs 3 mL for hemophilia B), vials per infusion (2 vs 1), reconstitution device (assembly required vs not), and manufacturer (established in hemophilia vs not). Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment. Respondents were told to assume that other aspects of treatment, such as risk of inhibitor development, cost, and method of distribution, would remain the same.

Results: A total of 89 patients and/or parents of children with hemophilia A participated; another 32 were included in the exercise for hemophilia B. Relative importance was 47%, 24%, and 18% for frequency of administration, efficacy, and manufacturer, respectively, in hemophilia A; analogous values were 48%, 26%, and 21% in hemophilia B. The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences.

Conclusion: Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus