Top

PharmacoEconomics

Published in:

01-02-2014 | Original Research Article

Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis

Authors: Aleksandra Torbica, Giovanni Fattore, Fabio Ayala

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Objective

To assess patient preferences for psoriasis treatment features and to investigate the heterogeneity of preferences among patients with different socio-demographic and disease-related characteristics.

Methodology

A discrete choice experiment was conducted on adult patients with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis during a routine visit to their physician at 15 centres in Italy. We investigated the preferences of patients with respect to five treatment attributes: (1) mode and frequency of administration; (2) time to improvement; (3) time free of symptoms; (4) unintended life expectancy reduction resulting from treatment; and (5) monthly treatment cost. The heterogeneity of preferences was investigated in a mixed logit model with normally distributed random coefficients.

Results

Overall, patients preferred the subcutaneous or intravenous route of administration (versus oral administration) and treatments that took less time to show improvement, ensured a longer time free of symptoms, involved a lesser reduction in life expectancy and had lower costs. There was significant preference heterogeneity for all attributes. The cost attribute was found to be significantly more important to females and to older patients (above 60 years of age). Older patients placed significantly greater emphasis on reduced life expectancy, whereas the time free of symptoms was significantly less important to them than to patients under 60 years of age. Patients with higher scores on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) placed higher value on the time free of symptoms than those with lower DLQI scores. For the overall sample, the marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for a month’s reduction in the time to improvement was €32.4, whereas the WTP for one additional month without symptoms was significantly higher (€68.2).

Conclusion

Patient-centred policies should consider the heterogeneity of patients’ expectations to identify individualized treatments that would aid in optimizing patient satisfaction and wellbeing, as well as overall treatment effectiveness.

Available only for authorised users

Fairhurst DA, Ashcroft DM, Griffiths CE. Optimal management of severe plaque form of psoriasis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2005;6(5):283–94.PubMedCrossRef

Renzi C, Picardi A, Abeni D, Agostini E, Baliva G, Pasquini P, et al. Association of dissatisfaction with care and psychiatric morbidity with poor treatment compliance. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(3):337–42.PubMedCrossRef

Zaghloul SS, Goodfield MJ. Objective assessment of compliance with psoriasis treatment. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(4):408–14. doi:10.1001/archderm.140.4.408.PubMedCrossRef

Richards HL, Fortune DG, Griffiths CE. Adherence to treatment in patients with psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2006;20(4):370–9. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01565.x.PubMedCrossRef

van de Kerkhof PC, de Hoop D, de Korte J, Cobelens SA, Kuipers MV. Patient compliance and disease management in the treatment of psoriasis in the Netherlands. Dermatology. 2000;200(4):292–8. doi:18390.PubMedCrossRef

Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2(2):112–21.PubMed

Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up—and there’s no going back. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):719–20.PubMedCrossRef

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.PubMedCrossRef

Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, Rubinstein F, Tesolin P, Gonzalez J, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16(2):385–93. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.11.007.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Hart-Hansen K. Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ. 2006;15(11):1217–28. doi:10.1002/hec.1117.PubMedCrossRef

11.

de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72. doi:10.1002/hec.1697.PubMedCrossRef

12.

McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econometr. 2000;5(5):447–70.CrossRef

13.

Hole AR. Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J Health Econ. 2008;27(4):1078–94. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.11.006.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, Hossain I, Louviere JJ. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):520–37. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.002.PubMedCrossRef

15.

King MT, Hall J, Lancsar E, Fiebig D, Hossain I, Louviere J, et al. Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2007;16(7):703–17. doi:10.1002/hec.1193.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Kjaer T, Gyrd-Hansen D. Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2008;85(1):124–32. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.07.002.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Paterson RW, Boyle KJ, Parmeter CF, Neumann JE, De Civita P. Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation. Health Econ. 2008;17(12):1363–77. doi:10.1002/hec.1336.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Ashcroft DM, Seston E, Griffiths CE. Trade-offs between the benefits and risks of drug treatment for psoriasis: a discrete choice experiment with U.K. dermatologists. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(6):1236–41. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07535.x.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Seston EM, Ashcroft DM, Griffiths CE. Balancing the benefits and risks of drug treatment: a stated-preference, discrete choice experiment with patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1175–9. doi:10.1001/archderm.143.9.1175.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Schenkel B, Lofland JH, Martin S. The value to patients of reducing lesion severity in plaque psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2011;22(5):266–75. doi:10.3109/09546634.2011.588193.CrossRef

21.

Schaarschmidt ML, Schmieder A, Umar N, Terris D, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285–94. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2011.309.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Schaarschmidt ML, Umar N, Schmieder A, Terris DD, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: impact of treatment experience. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27(2):187–98. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04440.x.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Schmieder A, Schaarschmidt ML, Umar N, Terris DD, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Comorbidities significantly impact patients’ preferences for psoriasis treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(3):363–72. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.08.023.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Smith CH, Anstey AV, Barker JN, Burden AD, Chalmers RJ, Chandler DA, et al. British Association of Dermatologists’ guidelines for biologic interventions for psoriasis 2009. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):987–1019. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09505.x.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Gelfand JM, Wan J, CallisDuffin K, Krueger GG, Kalb RE, Weisman JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of commonly used systemic treatments or phototherapy for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the clinical practice setting. Arch Dermatol. 2012;148(4):487–94. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2012.370.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Leonardi CL, Kimball AB, Papp KA, Yeilding N, Guzzo C, Wang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 76-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 1). Lancet. 2008;371(9625):1665–74. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60725-4.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Lotti T, Chimenti S, Katsambas A, Ortonne JP, Dubertret L, Licu D, et al. Efficacy and safety of efalizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis resistant to previous anti-psoriatic treatment: results of a multicentre, open-label, phase IIIb/IV trial. Arch Drug Inf. 2010;3(1):9–18. doi:10.1111/j.1753-5174.2009.00026.x.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

28.

Barker J, Hoffmann M, Wozel G, Ortonne JP, Zheng H, van Hoogstraten H, et al. Efficacy and safety of infliximab vs. methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results of an open-label, active-controlled, randomized trial (RESTORE1). Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(5):1109–17. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10615.x.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Strober BE, Crowley JJ, Yamauchi PS, Olds M, Williams DA. Efficacy and safety results from a phase III, randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of briakinumab with etanercept and placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(3):661–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10419.x.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Bissonnette R, Bolduc C, Maari C, Nigen S, Webster JM, Tang L, et al. Efficacy and safety of topical WBI-1001 in patients with mild to moderate psoriasis: results from a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled, phase II trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(12):1516–21. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04332.x.PubMed

31.

Strohal R, Puig L, Chouela E, Tsai TF, Melin J, Freundlich B, et al. The efficacy and safety of etanercept when used with as-needed adjunctive topical therapy in a randomised, double-blind study in subjects with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (the PRISTINE trial). J Dermatol Treat. 2013;24(3):169–78. doi:10.3109/09546634.2012.658015.CrossRef

32.

Cham PM, Chen SC, Grill JP, Jonk YC, Warshaw EM. Reliability of self-reported willingness-to-pay and annual income in patients treated for toenail onychomycosis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(5):922–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07740.x.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Radtke MA, Schafer I, Gajur A, Langenbruch A, Augustin M. Willingness-to-pay and quality of life in patients with vitiligo. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(1):134–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09091.x.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Schiffner R, Schiffner-Rohe J, Gerstenhauer M, Hofstadter F, Landthaler M, Stolz W. Willingness to pay and time trade-off: sensitive to changes of quality of life in psoriasis patients? Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(6):1153–60.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003;12(4):281–94. doi:10.1002/hec.729.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hole AR, Kolstad JR. Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empir Econ. 2012;42:445–69.CrossRef

38.

Hole A. Esitmating mixed logit using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J. 2007;7(3):388–401.

39.

Hensher DA, Greene WH. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation. 2003;30:133–76.CrossRef

40.

Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, 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):403–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Umar N, Litaker D, Schaarschmidt ML, Peitsch WK, Schmieder A, Terris DD. Outcomes associated with matching patients’ treatment preferences to physicians’ recommendations: study methodology. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:1. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-1.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

42.

Lamiraud K, Geoffard PY. Therapeutic non-adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences? Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1185–204. doi:10.1002/hec.1214.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):112–27. doi:10.1177/0272989X06297393.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis
Authors: Aleksandra Torbica
Giovanni Fattore
Fabio Ayala
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: PharmacoEconomics / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0126-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis

Abstract

Objective

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Clinical and Economic Impact of Substituting Dexmedetomidine for Propofol due to a US Drug Shortage: Examination of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients at an Urban Medical Centre

On the Use and Interpretation of Quantile Regression in Quality-of-Life Research

The Cost Effectiveness of Dry Powder Antibiotics for the Treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis

The Economic Burden of Skeletal-Related Events Among Elderly Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Rituximab in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia in First-Line Therapy and Following Relapse

Cost Effectiveness of a 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Versus Canadian Clinical Practice in Post-Menopausal Women with Early-Stage Estrogen or Progesterone-Receptor-Positive, Axillary Lymph-Node Positive Breast Cancer