Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach

Rieke Alten, Klaus Krüger, Julian Rellecke, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Olaf Behmer, Guido Schiffhorst, Hans-Dieter Nolting, Rieke Alten, Klaus Krüger, Julian Rellecke, Julia Schiffner-Rohe, Olaf Behmer, Guido Schiffhorst, Hans-Dieter Nolting

Abstract

Background: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) - developed more recently - offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as route of administration drive RA patients' treatment choice. This may ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences.

Objective: The current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for RA patients' preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE).

Materials and methods: The DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment options in a d-efficient design with varying levels of key attributes (route and frequency of administration, time till onset of drug effect, combination therapy, possible side effects), as defined by focus groups. Further patient characteristics were recorded by an accompanying questionnaire. In the DCE, patients were asked to choose best and worst options (best-worst scaling). Results were analyzed by count analysis and adjusted regression analysis.

Results: A total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, "oral administration" was most desired and "intravenous infusion" was most strongly rejected. This was followed by "no combination with methotrexate" being strongly preferred and "intake every 1-2 weeks" being strongly rejected. On average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on patients' decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis.

Conclusion: According to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1-2 weeks appears a highly favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.

Keywords: best–worst scaling; discrete-choice experiment; disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; patient preferences; rheumatoid arthritis.

Conflict of interest statement

This research was funded by Pfizer Pharma GmbH without any other financial activities outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results of adjusted regression analysis (attribute levels). Notes: ***P<0001. No P-values or CIs (lower/upper bound) computed for reference levels from effect coding. Reference levels in effect coding are indicated by (−). Attribute levels’ positive β-weights reflect biases toward “best” choices and negative β-weights reflect biases toward “worst” choices. Abbreviations: n.s., not significant; CI, confidence interval.

References

    1. Lipsky PE. Rheumatoid arthritis. In: Fauci A, Langford C, editors. Harrison’s Rheumatology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010. pp. 33–42.
    1. Lee DM, Weinblatt ME. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2001;358(9285):903–911.
    1. European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network Musculoskeletal Health in Europe: Report v5.0. 2012. [Accessed November 19, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Silman AJ, Hochberg MC. Descriptive epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH, editors. Rheumatoid Arthritis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009. pp. 15–22.
    1. Sangha O. Epidemiology of rheumatic diseases. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39(Suppl 2):3–12.
    1. Deutsche Rheuma-Forschungszentrum Daten der Kerndokumentation 2013. [Accessed November 19, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;73(3):492–509.
    1. Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL, Jr, et al. 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(1):1–26.
    1. Singh JA, Christensen R, Wells GA, et al. Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;128(5):309–310.
    1. Yazici Y. Abatacept versus other biologics in methotrexate inadequate responders with rheumatoid arthritis: you like tomato and I like tomahto … let’s call the whole thing off. Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14(1):104.
    1. 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.
    1. Fallowfield L, Atkins L, Catt S, et al. Patients’ preference for administration of endocrine treatments by injection or tablets: results from a study of women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(2):205–210.
    1. Mohr DC, Boudewyn AC, Likosky W, Levine E, Goodkin DE. Injectable medication for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: the influence of self-efficacy expectations and injection anxiety on adherence and ability to self-inject. Ann Behav Med. 2001;23(2):125–132.
    1. Barber N, Parsons J, Clifford S, Darracott R, Horne R. Patients’ problems with new medication for chronic conditions. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;3(3):172–175.
    1. Glombiewski JA, Nestoriuc Y, Rief W, Glaesmer H, Braehler E. Medication adherence in the general population. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e50537.
    1. Pasma A, van’t Spijker A, Hazes JM, Busschbach JJ, Luime JJ. Factors associated with adherence to pharmaceutical treatment for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013;43(1):18–28.
    1. van den Bemt BJ, Zwikker HE, van den Ende CH. Medication adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a critical appraisal of the existing literature. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2012;8(4):337–351.
    1. Barton JL. Patient preferences and satisfaction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic therapy. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2009;3:335–344.
    1. Chilton F, Collett RA. Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care. 2008;6(1):1–14.
    1. Fraenkel L, Bogardus S, Concato J, Felson D. Unwillingness of rheumatoid arthritis patients to risk adverse effects. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41(3):253–261.
    1. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP, de Vries-Bouwstra JK, Allaart CF, et al. Patient preferences for treatment: report from a randomized comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis (BeSt trial) Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(9):1227–1232.
    1. Lempp H, Hofmann D, Hatch SL, Scott DL. Patients’ views about treatment with combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:200.
    1. Scarpato S, Antivalle M, Favalli EG, et al. Patient preferences in the choice of anti-TNF therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a questionnaire survey (RIVIERA study) Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49(2):289–294.
    1. Willeke P, Becker H, Wassenberg S, Pavenstädt H, Jacobi AM. Bewertung einer Infusionbehandlung der rheumatoiden Arthritis durch Patienten und Rheumatologen [Patient/rheumatologist evaluation of infusion treatment for rheumatoid arthritis] Z Rheumatol. 2011;70(3):232–234. 236–238. German.
    1. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–189.
    1. Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, et al. Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–1727.
    1. Marley AA, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol. 2005;49:464–480.
    1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie Berlin: Rheuma in Zahlen: Betroffene Menschen in Deutschland. 2008. [Accessed November 19, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Federov V. Theory of Optimal Experiments. New York: Academic Press; 1972.
    1. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, 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.
    1. Leeb BF, Haindl PM, Maktari A, Nothnagl T, Rintelen B. Patient-centered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity assessment by a modified RADAI. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(7):1294–1299.
    1. Rintelen B, Haindl PM, Sautner J, Leeb BA, Deutsch C, Leeb BF. The rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index-5 in daily use: proposal for disease activity categories. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(5):918–924.
    1. Horne R, Weinman J, Hankins M. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing cognitive representations of medication. Psychol Health. 1999;14(1):1–24.
    1. Horne R, Weinman J. Patients’ beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness. J Psychosom Res. 1999;47(6):555–567.
    1. Neame R, Hammond A. Beliefs about medications: a questionnaire survey of people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44(6):762–767.
    1. Anderson J, Caplan L, Yazdany J, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures: American College of Rheumatology recommendations for use in clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64(5):640–647.
    1. Clifford S, Barber N, Horne R. Understanding different beliefs held by adherers, unintentional nonadherers, and intentional nonadherers: application of the necessity-concerns framework. J Psychosom Res. 2008;64(1):41–46.
    1. Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Mark. 1992;11(2):12–25.
    1. Auger P, Deevinney TM, Louviere J. Using best-worst scaling methodology to investigate ethical beliefs across countries. J Bus Ethics. 2007;70:299–326.
    1. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:76.
    1. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes Das Informations system der Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. 2014. [Accessed November 19, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Skjoldborg US, Lauridsen J, Junker P. Reliability of the discrete choice experiment at the input and output level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Value Health. 2009;12(1):153–158.
    1. 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.
    1. Poulos C, Hauber AB, González JM, Turpcu A. Patients’ willingness to trade off between the duration and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66(7):1008–1015.
    1. Louder AM, Singh A, Saverno K, et al. Patient preferences regarding rheumatoid arthritis therapies: a conjoint analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016;9(2):84–93.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit