Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs: A conjoint analysis

Epilepsy and Behavior

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 474-479

  Manjunath, Ranjani ^a   Yang, Jui Chen ^b   Ettinger, Alan B ^c  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^b RTI HEALTH SOLUTIONS   (United States)

^c Neurological Surgery PC   (United States)

Author keywords

Antiepileptic drug (AED); Conjoint analysis; Discrete choice experiment (DCE); Patient preference; Stated preference; Survey research

Indexed keywords

ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DRUG TOLERABILITY; EPILEPSY; FEMALE; FOCAL EPILEPSY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN; SCORING SYSTEM; SEIZURE; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANTICONVULSANTS; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; EPILEPSY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84864324582     PISSN: 15255050     EISSN: 15255069     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.05.020     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Perucca E., Meador K.J. Adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 2005, 181:30-35.
2. Epilepsy Foundation of America Epilepsy and seizure statistics Available from:, Accessed January 5, 2012. http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/aboutepilepsy/index.cfm/statistics.cfm.
3. Asconapé J.J. The selection of antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of epilepsy in children and adults. Neurol Clin 2010, 28(4):843-852.
4. Azar N.J., Abou-Khalil B.W. Considerations in the choice of an antiepileptic drug in the treatment of epilepsy. Semin Neurol 2008, 28(3):305-316.
5. Brodie M.J. Medical therapy of epilepsy: when to initiate treatment and when to combine?. J Neurol 2005, 252(2):125-130.
6. Brodie M.J., Kwan P. The star systems: overview and use in determining antiepileptic drug choice. CNS Drugs 2001, 15(1):1-12. [discussion 13-5].
7. French J.A., Kanner A.M., Bautista J., et al. Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs, II: treatment of refractory epilepsy: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee and Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Neurology 2004, 62(8):1261-1273.
8. French J.A., Kanner A.M., Bautista J., et al. Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs, II: treatment of refractory epilepsy: report of the TTA and QSS Subcommittees of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society. Epilepsia 2004, 45(5):410-423.
9. Tomson T. Drug selection for the newly diagnosed patient: when is a new generation antiepileptic drug indicated?. J Neurol 2004, 251(9):1043-1049.
10. Gilliam F.G. Epilepsy-success in clinical practice: translating trials to practice. Eur J Neurol 2005, 12(Suppl. 4):22-29.
11. Sander J.W. Ultimate success in epilepsy-the patient's perspective. Eur J Neurol 2005, 12(Suppl. 4):3-11.
12. Fisher R.S., Vickrey B.G., Gibson P., et al. The impact of epilepsy from the patient's perspective II: views about therapy and health care. Epilepsy Res 2000, 41(1):53-61.
13. Lloyd A., McIntosh E., Price M. The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 2005, 23(11):1167-1181.
14. Bridges J., Kinter E., Kidane L., Heinzen R., McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970-2007. Patient 2008, 1(4):273-282.
15. Bryan S., Martin B., Robert S., Alison G. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998, 7:595-603.
16. Gan T.J., Lubarsky D.A., Flood E.M., et al. Patient preferences for acute pain medication. Br J Anaesth 2004, 92(5):681-688.
17. Hanley N., Ryan M., Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ 2003, 12(1):3-16.
18. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied choice analysis: a primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19. Johnson F.R., Banzhaf M., Desvousges W. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000, 9(4):295-317.
20. Johnson F.R., Ozdemir S., Mansfield C., et al. Crohn's disease patients' risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology 2007, 133(3):769-779.
21. Lanscar E., Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26(8):661-677.
22. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1st ed.
23. Ryan M., Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003, 2(1):55-64.
24. Ryan M., McIntosh E., Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 1998, 7(4):373-378.
25. Viney R., Lanscar E., Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2002, 2:89-96.
26. Beusterien K.M., Dziekan K., Flood E., Harding G., Jordan J.C. Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment. Value Health 2005, 8(4):453-461.
27. Coast J., Salisbury C., de Berker D., et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol 2006, 155:387-392.
28. Hauber A.B., Johnson F.R., Mohamed A.F., Leibman C., Arrighi H.M., Grundman M. Older Americans' risk-benefit preferences for modifying the course of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009, 23(1):23-32.
29. Hauber A.B., Johnson F.R., Sauriol L., Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005, 28(9):2243-2245.
30. Johnson F.R., Fries E., Banzhaf H.S. Valuing morbidity: an integration of the willingness-to-pay and health-status index literatures. J Health Econ 1998, 16:641-665.
31. Johnson F.R., Desvousges W.H. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manag 1997, 34:79-99.
32. Johnson F.R., Manjunath R., Mansfield C.A., Clayton L.J., Hoerger T.J., Zhang P. High-risk individuals' willingness to pay for diabetes risk-reduction programs. Diabetes Care 2006, 29(6):1351-1356.
33. King M.T., Hall J., Lancsar E., et al. Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2006, 16:703-717.
34. Marshall D.A., Johnson F.R., Phillips K.A., Marshall J.K., Thabane L., Kulin N.A. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007, 10(5):415-430.
35. Peacock S., Apicella C., Andrews L., et al. A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services. Br J Cancer 2006, 95:1448-1453.
36. Phillips K.A., Maddala T., Johnson F.R. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002, 37:1681-1705.
37. Roux L., Ubach C., Donaldson C., Ryan M. Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. Obes Res 2004, 12:1342-1351.
38. Ryan M., Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000, 320:1530-1533.
39. Ryan M., Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997, 6:261-273.
40. Viscusi W., Magat W., Huber J. Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar tradeoffs for chronic bronchitis. J Environ Econ Manag 1991, 21:32-51.
41. Weston A., Fitzgerald P. Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22:1195-1208.
42. Wittink D.R., Cattin P. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J Market Res 1989, 53:91-96.
43. Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Market Res 1996, 33:307-317.
44. Kuhfeld W. Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques 2010, SAS Institute Inc., Cary.
45. Orme B. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research 2010, Research Publishers LLC, Madison, Wis. 2nd ed.
46. Berman L., Curry L., Goldberg C., Gusberg R., Fraenkel L. Pilot-testing of a decision support tool for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 2011, 53(2):285-292.e1.
47. Fraenkel L., Chodkowski D., Lim J., Garcia-Tsao G. Patients' preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Making 2010, 30(1):45-57.