Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes

Patient Preference and Adherence

Volumn 10, Issue , 2016, Pages 1385-1399

  Stewart, Katie D ^a   Johnston, Joseph A ^b   Matza, Louis S ^a   Curtis, Sarah E ^b   Havel, Henry A ^c   Sweetana, Stephanie A ^c   Gelhorn, Heather L ^a  

^a EVIDERA   (United States)

^b Global Patient Outcomes Real World Evidence   (United States)

^c ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint; Contingent valuation; Pharmaceutical formulation; Preference; Treatment process; Utility

Indexed keywords

INSULIN;

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG ADMINISTRATION ROUTE; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG THERAPY; EMBASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; ONCOLOGY; OSTEOPOROSIS; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PHARMACEUTICAL TREATMENT PROCESS ATTRIBUTE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; TREATMENT DURATION;

EID: 84984991410     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1177889X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S101821     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Hixson-Wallace JA, Dotson JB, Blakey SA. Effect of regimen complexity on patient satisfaction and compliance with warfarin therapy. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2001;7(1):33-37.
2. Morris LS, Schulz RM. Medication compliance: the patient’s perspective. Clin Ther. 1993;15(3):593-606.
3. Raue PJ, Schulberg HC, Heo M, Klimstra S, Bruce ML. Patients’ depression treatment preferences and initiation, adherence, and outcome: a randomized primary care study. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(3):337-343.
4. Shikiar R, Rentz A, Barone J, Duncanson F, Katz E. Patient satisfaction with ofloxacin (F) and polymyxin B/neomycin/hydrocortisone (C) in the treatment of otitis externa: results from two randomized clinical trials. J Manage Care Med. 2002;6(3):24-27.
5. Shikiar R, Rentz AM. Satisfaction with medication: an overview of conceptual, methodologic, and regulatory issues. Value Health. 2004;7(2):204-215.
6. Allan L, Hays H, Jensen NH, et al. Randomised crossover trial of transdermal fentanyl and sustained release oral morphine for treating chronic non-cancer pain. BMJ. 2001;322(7295):1154-1158.
7. Gelhorn HL, Stringer SM, Brooks A, et al. Preferences for medication attributes among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15(9):802-809.
8. Johnson FR, 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.
9. Johnson FR, Van Houtven G, Ozdemir S, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554-562.
10. Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):677-691.
11. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):699-707.
12. Swan JS, Sainfort F, Lawrence WF, Kuruchittham V, Kongnakorn T, Heisey DM. Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease. Acad Radiol. 2003;10(3):266-274.
13. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213-224.
14. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403-413.
15. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320(7248):1530-1533.
16. Rowen D, Brazier J. Health utility measurement. In: Glied S, Smith P, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011:788-813.
17. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1-30.
18. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D. Health utility estimation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2(2):99-108.
19. Matza LS, Cong Z, Chung K, et al. Utilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastases. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:855-865.
20. Bogelund M, Vilsboll T, Faber J, Henriksen JE, Gjesing RP, Lammert M. Patient preferences for diabetes management among people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark-a discrete choice experiment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(11):2175-2183.
21. de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211-219.
22. de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(7):1029-1037.
23. Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, et al. A valuation of patients’ willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(3):359-366.
24. Jendle J, Torffvit O, Ridderstrale M, Ericsson A, Nilsen B, Bogelund M. Willingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme results. J Med Econ. 2012;15(Suppl 2):1-5.
25. Jendle J, Torffvit O, Ridderstrale M, Lammert M, Ericsson A, Bogelund M. Willingness to pay for health improvements associated with anti-diabetes treatments for people with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(4):917-923.
26. Chancellor J, Aballea S, Lawrence A, et al. Preferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimens. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(3):217-234.
27. Sadri H. Contingent valuation of inhaled insulin: a Canadian perspective. J Med Econ. 2007;10(4):475-487.
28. Sadri H, MacKeigan LD, Leiter LA, Einarson TR. Willingness to pay for inhaled insulin: a contingent valuation approach. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(12):1215-1227.
29. Darba J, Restovic G, Kaskens L, et al. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1947-1954.
30. Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, Cowell W, Littlewood T, Sculpher M. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and health-related quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):223-237.
31. Casciano R, Malangone E, Ramachandran A, Gagliardino JJ. A quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulin. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(4):408-414.
32. Silverman S, Calderon A, Kaw K, et al. Patient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(7):2067-2077.
33. Boye KS, Matza LS, Walter KN, Van Brunt K, Palsgrove AC, Tynan A. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):219-230.
34. Evans M, Jensen HH, Bogelund M, Gundgaard J, Chubb B, Khunti K. Flexible insulin dosing improves health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL): a time trade-off survey. J Med Econ. 2013;16(11):1357-1365.
35. Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Schenkel B, Lofland JH, Martin S. The value to patients of reducing lesion severity in plaque psoriasis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2011;22(5):266-275.
36. Lloyd A, Nafees B, Barnett AH, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2011;33(9):1258-1267.
37. Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894-901.
38. Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16(2):385-393.
39. Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(5):729-735.
40. Hodgkins P, Swinburn P, Solomon D, Yen L, Dewilde S, Lloyd A. Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2012;5(1):33-44.
41. Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, Maniadakis N. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2004;7(4):442-454.
42. Mohamed AF, Zhang J, Johnson FR, et al. Avoidance of weight gain is important for oral type 2 diabetes treatments in Sweden and Germany: patient preferences. Diabetes Metab. 2013;39(5):397-403.
43. Schmieder A, Schaarschmidt ML, Umar N, et al. Comorbidities significantly impact patients’ preferences for psoriasis treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(3):363-372.
44. Schaarschmidt ML, Umar N, Schmieder A, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: impact of treatment experience. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27(2):187-198.
45. Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, Williamson E, Clarke S, Grant K. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(11):775-784.
46. Bridges JF, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224-231.
47. Langer CJ, Fastenau JM, Forlenza JB, et al. Effectiveness versus convenience: patient preferences for an erythropoietic agent to treat cancer-related anemia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(1):85-92.
48. Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products-liraglutide and exenatide-for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):655-661.
49. Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.
50. Shafey M, Lupichuk SM, Do T, Owen C, Stewart DA. Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(7):962-969.
51. Wong MK, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, et al. Patients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1139-1148.
52. Hauber AB, Han S, Yang JC, et al. Effect of pill burden on dosing preferences, willingness to pay, and likely adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:937-949.
53. Schaarschmidt ML, Schmieder A, Umar N, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285-1294.
54. Lichtenstein GR, Waters HC, Kelly J, et al. Assessing drug treatment preferences of patients with Crohn’s disease: a conjoint analysis. Patient. 2010;3(2):113-123.
55. FDA. Patient Preference Information-Submission, Review in PMAs, HDE Applications, and De Novo Requests, and Inclusion in Device Labeling. Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); May 2015:26.
56. Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, et al. Socioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(9):567-573.
57. Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Gill S, et al. A discrete choice experiment evaluation of patients’ preferences for different risk, benefit, and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes management. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:433-440.
58. Pinto SL, Holiday-Goodman M, Black CD, Lesch D. Identifying factors that affect patients’ willingness to pay for inhaled insulin. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009;5(3):253-261.
59. Sung L, Alibhai SM, Ethier MC, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):627-634.
60. Teuffel O, Cheng S, Ethier MC, et al. Health-related quality of life anticipated with different management strategies for febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(11):2755-2764.
61. Shingler SL, Swinburn P, Ali S, Perard R, Lloyd AJ. A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2013;16(8):1036-1042.