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

Relative importance of treatment attributes by type of hemophilia.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f2-ppa-9-1687: Relative importance of treatment attributes by type of hemophilia.

Mentions: Three of the six attributes accounted for >88% of the total impact of the elements included in the study on the treatment decision process in hemophilia A (Figure 2). Frequency of administration on prophylaxis was the main driver of preference among the attributes included in the exercise, with a relative importance of 47%. The frequency of breakthrough bleeding, here drawn from the range of bleeding rates reported in clinical trials,34–41 had a relative importance of 24%, approximately half that of administration frequency. Whether the product came from an established manufacturer of hemophilia treatments had a similar impact on preference, with an importance of 18%. Of the remaining attributes, number of vials and reconstitution device had a small and similar impact on the decision process, with 6% and 4% importance, respectively, while diluent volume accounted for 2%.


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

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

Relative importance of treatment attributes by type of hemophilia.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f2-ppa-9-1687: Relative importance of treatment attributes by type of hemophilia.
Mentions: Three of the six attributes accounted for >88% of the total impact of the elements included in the study on the treatment decision process in hemophilia A (Figure 2). Frequency of administration on prophylaxis was the main driver of preference among the attributes included in the exercise, with a relative importance of 47%. The frequency of breakthrough bleeding, here drawn from the range of bleeding rates reported in clinical trials,34–41 had a relative importance of 24%, approximately half that of administration frequency. Whether the product came from an established manufacturer of hemophilia treatments had a similar impact on preference, with an importance of 18%. Of the remaining attributes, number of vials and reconstitution device had a small and similar impact on the decision process, with 6% and 4% importance, respectively, while diluent volume accounted for 2%.

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