Societal preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: evidence from a discrete choice experiment

Calculating ex-ante Utilities From the Neck Disability Index Score: Quantifying the Value of Care For Cervical Spine Pathology

STUDY DESIGN

General population utility valuation study.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score.

METHODS

We recruited a sample of 1200 adults from a market research panel. Using an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), participants rated 10 choice sets based on NDI health states. A multi-attribute utility function was estimated using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model (MIXL). The sample was partitioned into a training set used for model fitting and validation set used for model evaluation.

RESULTS

The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance on the validation set with an AUC of .77 (95% CI: .76-.78). The regression model was used to develop a utility scoring rubric for the NDI. Regression results also revealed that participants did not regard all NDI items as equally important. The rank order of importance was (in decreasing order): pain intensity = work; personal care = headache; concentration = sleeping; driving; recreation; lifting; and lastly reading.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a simple technique for converting the NDI score to utilities and quantify the relative importance of individual NDI items. The ability to evaluate quality-adjusted life-years using these utilities for cervical spine pain and disability could facilitate economic analysis and aid in allocation of healthcare resources.

Adolescent and caregiver preferences for juvenile idiopathic arthritis treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to elicit and quantify preferences for treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

METHODS

We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among adolescents with JIA in the United States (US) (n = 197) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 100) and caregivers of children with JIA in the US (n = 207) and UK (n = 200). In a series of questions, respondents chose between experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical JIA treatments that varied in efficacy (symptom control; time until next flare-up), side effects (stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; headaches), mode and frequency of administration, and the need for combination therapy. Using a random-parameters logit model, we estimated preference weights for these attributes, from which we derived their conditional relative importance.

RESULTS

On average, respondents preferred greater symptom control; greater time until the next flare-up; less stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; and fewer headaches. However, adolescents and caregivers in the US were generally indifferent across varying modes and frequencies of administration. UK adolescents and caregivers preferred tablets, syrup, or injections to intravenous infusions. US and UK adolescents were indifferent between treatment with monotherapy or combination therapy; caregivers in the UK preferred treatment with combination therapy to monotherapy. Subgroup analysis showed preference heterogeneity across characteristics including gender, treatment experience, and symptom experience in both adolescents and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved symptom control, prolonged time to next flare-up, and avoidance of adverse events such as headache, stomachache, nausea, and vomiting are desirable characteristics of treatment regimens for adolescents with JIA and their caregivers.

Factors influencing choice of b/ts DMARDs in managing inflammatory arthritis from a patient perspective: a systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey from Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

To investigate factors concerning patients regarding biological/target synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in treating inflammatory arthritis (IA).

DESIGN

This study consists of a systematic review and a cross-sectional survey in Hong Kong. A systematic review of literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2022. Content analysis was conducted to summarise factors grouped by four themes-social aspects (SA), clinical aspects (CA), medicine characteristics (MC) and financial aspects (FA) in the decision-making process. One cross-sectional survey among Hong Kong patients with IA was conducted to add to global evidence.

SETTING

A systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey in Hong Kong to complement scarce evidence in Asia regions.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 34 studies. The four themes were presented in descending order consistently but varied with frequency throughout decision-making processes. During decision-making involving medication initiation, preference and discontinuation, MC (reported frequency: 83%, 86%, 78%), SA (56%, 43%, 78%) and FA (39%, 33%, 56%) were the three most frequently reported factors, whereas CA was less studied. Local survey also revealed that MC factors such as treatment efficacy and the probability of severe adverse events, and SA factors such as the availability of government or charity subsidy, influenced patients' initiation and preference for b/ts DMARDs. Meanwhile, self-estimated improvement in disease conditions (SA), drug side effects (MC) and drug costs (FA) were associated with treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Global and local evidence consistently indicate that MC and SA are important considerations in patients' decisions regarding novel DMARDs. Health policies that reduce patients' financial burden and enhances healthcare professionals' engagement in decision-making and treatment delivery should be in place with an efficient healthcare system for managing IA optimistically.

Exploring preferences of at-risk individuals for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Some immunomodulatory drugs have been shown to delay the onset of, or lower the risk of developing, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), if given to individuals at risk. Several trials are ongoing in this area; however, little evidence is currently available about the views of those at risk of RA regarding preventive treatment.

METHOD

Three focus groups and three interviews explored factors that are relevant to first degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients and members of the general public when considering taking preventive treatment for RA. The semi-structured qualitative interview prompts explored participant responses to hypothetical attributes of preventive RA medicines. Transcripts of focus group/interview proceedings were inductively coded and analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-one individuals (five FDRs, 16 members of the general public) took part in the study. Ten broad themes were identified describing factors that participants felt would influence their decisions about whether to take preventive treatment if they were at increased risk of RA. These related either directly to features of the specific treatment or to other factors, including personal characteristics, attitude towards taking medication, and an individual's actual risk of developing RA.

CONCLUSION

This research highlights the importance of non-treatment factors in the decision-making process around preventive treatments, and will inform recruitment to clinical trials as well as information to support shared decision making by those considering preventive treatment. Studies of treatment preferences in individuals with a confirmed high risk of RA would further inform clinical trial design.

Physical function and severe side effects matter most to patients with RA (< 5 years): a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for personalized RA treatment

AIM

Early assessment of patient preferences has the potential to support shared decisions in personalized precision medicine for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment preferences of patients with RA (< 5 years) with previous experience of inadequate response to first-line monotherapy.

METHOD

Patients were recruited (March-June 2021) via four clinics in Sweden. Potential respondents (N = 933) received an invitation to answer a digital survey. The survey included an introductory part, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and demographic questions. Each respondent answered 11 hypothetical choice questions as part of the DCE. Patient preferences and preference heterogeneity were estimated using random parameter logit models and latent class analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 182) assessed the most important treatment attributes out of physical functional capacity, psychosocial functional capacity, frequency of mild side effects and likelihood of severe side effects. In general, patients preferred a greater increase in functional capacity and decreased side effects. However, a substantial preference heterogeneity was identified with two underlying preference patterns. The most important attribute in the first pattern was the 'likelihood of getting a severe side effect'. Physical functional capacity was the most important attribute in the second pattern.

CONCLUSION

Respondents focused their decision-making mainly on increasing their physical functional capacity or decreasing the likelihood of getting a severe side effect. These results are highly relevant from a clinical perspective to strengthen communication in shared decision making by assessing patients' individual preferences for benefits and risks in treatment discussions.

Preferred Mode of Therapy Among Patients in Rheumatoid Arthritis Saudi Database: A Cross-Sectional Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Current knowledge of patients' preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is limited. Our goal was to determine the most favorable mode of therapy and the reasons behind choosing each route among RA patients in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Saudi Database (RASD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional, nationwide, qualitative study, we conducted interviews with 308 RA patients to assess their preferred mode of therapy (oral, subcutaneous (SC) injection, or intravenous (IV) infusion) and to determine the reasons behind their choice. The determining factors behind patients' preferred mode of therapy were evaluated using a 10-point allocation system (1 = least important, 10 = most important).

RESULTS

We interviewed 308 RA patients (83.4% females, mean age, 48 years). Among all administration modes, the oral route was identified as the most preferred mode among our patients, with a percentage of 73.3%, followed by SC injection and IV infusion at 19.5% and 7.3%, respectively. Ease of drug administration was the most reported reason for patients who chose the oral route over the injection route (63.2%). Difficulty remembering to take the drug and finding it hard to swallow the pills were the highest-scored reasons for avoiding the oral route (24.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates and emphasizes the importance of shared decision-making between patients and their physicians. The oral route of therapy is, by far, the most preferred mode among our cohort of RA patients.

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Drug Survival of Biologic Therapy in Elderly Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared With Nonelderly Patients: Results From the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry

OBJECTIVE

Although the proportion of elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is increasing, the persistency of biologic therapy in elderly patients requires additional investigation. This study evaluated the drug survival of biologic therapy and associated factors in elderly compared with nonelderly patients.

METHODS

This longitudinal observational study included RA patients who were enrolled in the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry (NCT01965132, started from January 1, 2013) between 2013 and 2015. We compared the retention rate of biologic therapy between elderly (age ≥70 years) and nonelderly (age <70 years) patients, and investigated the causes and predictors of biologic withdrawal in both groups.

RESULTS

Of 682 patients, 122 were aged 70 years or older. The retention rate of biologic therapy at 24 months was 57.8% and 46.5% in nonelderly and elderly patients, respectively (p = 0.027). Biologic withdrawal due to adverse events and inefficacy within 24 months was not significantly different between the 2 groups, although adverse events were more common in elderly patients (20.6% vs 12.8%, p = 0.360). Drug withdrawal due to patient refusal was more common in elderly patients (9.8% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001). In elderly patients, biologic withdrawal was associated with current smoking and older age at disease onset, whereas the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, nonuse of methotrexate, and combination of corticosteroid were important in nonelderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly RA patients are more likely to discontinue biologic agents within 24 months. To increase the retention rate of biologic therapy, rheumatologists should consider patient characteristics before and during biologic therapy.

Preference to Family Doctor Contracted Service of Patients with Chronic Disease in Urban China: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

Shanghai is one of the pioneers proposing family doctor contract service (FDCS). However, there is no quantitative research focusing on the Shanghai experience from a demand-side perspective. This study investigated Shanghai chronic patients' relative preferences for FDCS using a discrete choice experiment method.

METHODS

A face-to-face discrete choice experiment (DCE) was performed to elicit the preference with 300 samples. Attributes and levels were extracted from the literature review and focus group consultation with patients. Seven attributes, follow-up frequency, medicine accessibility, family doctor competency, health management, referral convenience, appointment flexibility, and shared decision-making, were decided. Three levels were attached to each attribute. A mixed logit model was used to evaluate the multiple-choice data.

RESULTS

A total of 248 patients completed the survey. Patient valued FDCS medicine accessibility (β=0.57, P < 0.05), and high family doctor competency (β= 0.43, P < 0.05), regular health management activities (β=0.36, P < 0.05), high follow-up frequency (β=0.31, P < 0.05) the most. The good doctor-patient shared decision-making atmosphere (β=0.12, P < 0.05), high referral convenience (β=0.06, P < 0.05) and high appointment flexibility (β=0.04, P < 0.05) are valued as less important. No significant preference heterogeneity was identified for patients with different sociodemographic characteristics. Respondents reported other FDCS needs, including online health consultation, specialist services in local institutes, higher reimbursement rates, free rehabilitation guidance for the disabled and personal health management.

CONCLUSION

This research is the first discrete choice experiment FDCS preference research targeting on Chinese urban population. The results suggested that to increase the quality of FDCS, policy-makers should prioritize follow-up frequency, medicine accessibility, family doctor competency and health management. The service package should consider a higher reimbursement rate and rehabilitation guidance for the disabled if extra health-care resources available. Future FDCS policy should consider stated societal preference and be congruent with it.

Functional capacity vs side effects: treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Individualisation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment needs to take account of individual patients’ preferences to increase patient-centeredness in treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to identify patient-relevant treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with RA.

Method

Patients with RA in Sweden were invited to rank the most important treatment attributes in an online survey (April to May 2020). Semi-structured interviews were conducted (October to November 2020) to further identify and frame potential attributes for shared decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Patient research partners and rheumatologists supported the selection and framing of the treatment attributes across the assessment.

Results

The highest ranked attributes (N = 184) were improved functional capacity, reduced inflammation, reduced pain and fatigue and the risk of getting a severe side effect. The framework analysis revealed two overarching themes for further exploration: treatment goals and side effects. ‘Treatment goals’ emerged from functional capacity, revealing two dimensions: physical functional capacity and psychosocial functional capacity. ‘Side effects’ revealed that mild and severe side effects were the most important to discuss in shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Functional capacity (physical and psychosocial) and potential side effects (mild and severe) are important treatment attributes to consider when individualising RA treatment. Future research should assess how patients with RA weigh benefits and risks against each other, in order to increase patient-centeredness early on the treatment trajectory.

Preferences for biologic treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess patient preferences for the characteristics and outcomes of biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs to manage psoriatic arthritis.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment in patients with psoriatic arthritis from three rheumatology centers in Sydney, Australia. We assessed preferences for different attributes of biologic medications. The route and frequency of medications had a range of five levels and the following seven attributes had a range of three levels: the ability to attend to normal activities, improvements in joint pain, enthesitis and skin disease, chance of disease remission, risk of infection and risk of severe adverse events. Multinomial logit models including a latent class model were used to calculate preferences.

RESULTS

Of the 150 participants, 58.3% were female, with a median age of 53.5 years. The attributes in order of preference were (β coefficient in absolute values, 95% confidence interval): oral route compared to subcutaneous and intravenous routes (β coefficient 1.00, fixed-parameter), avoiding severe side effects (0.72, 0.50 to 0.95), increasing ability to attend to normal activities (0.66, 0.36 to 0.96), avoiding infections (0.38, 0.23 to 0.53), improvement in enthesitis pain (0.28, 0.20 to 0.36), improvement in psoriasis (0.28, CI 0.20 to 0.36), increasing chance of remission (0.27, 0.19 to 0.36) and improvement in joint pain (0.26, 0.00 to 0.52).

CONCLUSION

When choosing biologic medications, patients with psoriatic arthritis preferred oral medications. Patients prioritized avoiding severe complications, maintaining the ability to attend to work and normal activities and avoiding infection over clinical measures of efficacy.

Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

General population utility valuation study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0 (SOSGOQ2.0).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for metastatic spine disease would enhance treatment decision-making and facilitate economic analysis. QALYs are calculated using utilities.

METHODS

Using a hybrid concept-retention and factorial analysis shortening approach, we first shortened the SOSGOQ2.0 to eight items (SOSGOQ-8D). This was done to lessen the cognitive burden of the utility valuation exercise. A general population sample of 2730 adults was then asked to evaluate 12 choice sets based on SOSGOQ-8D health states in a Discrete Choice Experiment. A utility scoring rubric was then developed using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model.

RESULTS

We were able to reduce the SOSGOQ2.0 to an SOSGOQ-8D with a mean error of 0.003 and mean absolute error of 3.078 compared to the full questionnaire. The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance and was used to develop a utility scoring rubric. Regression results revealed that participants did not regard all SOSGOQ-8D items as equally important.

CONCLUSION

We provide a simple technique for converting the SOSGOQ2.0 to utilities. The ability to evaluate QALYs in metastatic spine disease will facilitate economic analysis and patient counseling. We also quantify the importance of individual SOSGOQ-8D items. Clinicians should heed these findings and offer treatments that maximize function in the most important items.Level of Evidence: 3.

What Matters to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis When Facing Medical or Non-Medical Treatment Decisions?

BACKGROUND

In rheumatoid arthritis care, patients and healthcare professionals regularly face health treatment decisions. Sorting out what matters to a patient as being relevant to a specific decision is therefore essential.

METHODS

An explorative mixed-methods study was performed to investigate patients' values for health treatment decisions and their importance in order to develop a future decision aid on value clarification. Ten semi-structured interviews with patient partners were conducted followed by an online survey among the broader population of patients. Qualitative content analysis was performed. Data from the online survey were analysed descriptively and quantitatively.

RESULTS

According to patients, 17 important health treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis care can occur. The most commonly reported decisions concerned the use of medication. A variety of values may guide patients' health treatment decisions. We found 66 values among four domains of values - decisional, situational, external and global. Among decisional values, reported main values were a) effectiveness of treatment on inflammation, functioning, pain and fatigue; b) avoiding negative side-effects; and c) keeping in good physical condition. In addition, situational values turned out to be a) staying independent; b) being able to meet people; and c) leading as normal a life as possible. Furthermore, patients prefer healthcare professionals who a) take comorbidity into account, b) have enough time, and c) take the patient seriously in their choices - the external values. Finally, as global values were expressed a) autonomy; b) self-image, and c) intimacy. All values are specified by underlying quotes, for example, the value effectiveness on inflammation; "That inflammation has got to go, because you've then got the risk that you'll develop all kinds of things in the course of time".

CONCLUSION

A variety of values may guide patients' health treatment decisions within rheumatoid arthritis care. Patients and professionals should discuss patients' values continuously.

Comparative Risk of Nonvertebral Fractures Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Biologic or Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the incidence rate of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures (NVFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating one of the nine biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

METHODS

We analyzed claims data from Optum (2008 to March 2019), Medicare, and MarketScan (2008-2017) to identify adults with RA who newly initiated b/tsDMARDs. Adalimumab was the most frequently used and was thus selected as a reference. The primary outcome was a composite of incident NVFs, including hip, humerus, pelvis, and wrist fractures, based on validated algorithms. We adjusted for greater than 70 potential confounders in each database through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Follow-up time started the day after cohort entry until the first occurrence of one of the following: outcome, treatment discontinuation, switching, nursing home admission, death, disenrollment, or end of study period. For each drug comparison, weighted Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses were conducted in patients switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to a different b/tsDMARD.

RESULTS

A total of 134,693 b/tsDMARD initiators were identified across three databases. The adjusted HRs showed similar risk of composite NVFs in all b/tsDMARD exposures compared with adalimumab: abatacept, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30); certolizumab, HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.49); etanercept, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.89-1.40); golimumab, HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.39); infliximab, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.84-1.28); rituximab, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74-1.55); tocilizumab, HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.71-2.17); and tofacitinib, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64). Secondary analyses showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

This multidatabase cohort study found no differences in the risk of NVFs across individual b/tsDMARDs for RA, which provides reassurance to physicians prescribing b/tsDMARDs, especially to patients at high risk of developing NVFs.

Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

There have been promising developments in technologies and associated algorithm-based prescribing (‘stratified approach’) to target biologics to sub-groups of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The acceptability of using an algorithm-guided approach in practice is likely to depend on various factors.

Objective

This study quantified preferences for an algorithm-guided approach to prescribing biologics (termed ‘biologic calculator’).

Methods

An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit preferences from patients and the public for using a ‘biologic calculator’ compared with conventional prescribing. Treatment approaches were described by five attributes: delay to starting treatment; positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV); risk of infection; and cost saving to the UK national health service. Each survey contained six choice sets asking respondents to select their preferred option from two hypothetical biologic calculators or conventional prescribing. Background questions included sociodemographics, health status and healthcare experiences. DCE data were analysed using mixed logit models.

Results

Completed choice data were collected from 292 respondents (151 patients with RA and 142 members of the public). PPV, NPV and risk of infection were the most highly valued attributes to respondents deciding between prescribing strategies.

Conclusion

Respondents were generally receptive to personalised medicine in RA, but researchers developing personalised approaches should pay close attention to generating evidence on both the PPV and the NPV of their technologies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00533-z.

Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients

Background

Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.

Methods

Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients’ choices.

Conclusion

Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

Preferences for treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in Canada and the influence of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To elicit and compare preferences of patients and first-degree relatives and rheumatologists for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, understand the influence of shared decision-making, and predict the probability of uptake of the preventive treatments currently being studied.

METHODS

An online discrete choice experiment was completed by patients and their first-degree relatives and rheumatologists. Results were analysed using mixed logit model to estimate preferences for the key features of treatments. Preferences for features of treatments were used to predict the probability of uptake of seven preventive treatment options.

RESULTS

A total of 108 potential recipients (78 patients and 30 of their first-degree relatives) and 39 rheumatologists completed the survey. Preferences of patients/first-degree relatives and rheumatologists were similar (shared decision-making was most important, followed by the risk of side effects and potential benefit), but subtle differences existed; rheumatologists placed greater importance on certainty in evidence than patients/first-degree relatives, who felt that how a treatment was taken was more important. Predicted uptake suggested that 38% (95% CI 19%, 58%) of patients/first-degree relatives would not take a preventive treatment, compared with 12% (95% CI - 4%, 27%) of rheumatologists. A consistent finding across all groups was a preference for non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Only relatively safe options for preventive treatment are likely to be acceptable to at-risk populations. This study of preventive treatments highlights that the preferences of physicians and recipients of treatment should take a central role in the design of clinical studies as well as in decisions to initiate treatments. Key Points • This paper is the first to compare preferences for preventive treatments between rheumatologists and patients and at-risk individuals. • The results of this study indicate that patients and at-risk individuals, as well as rheumatologists, are likely to prefer the safest options as preventive treatment, even if the potential benefit of these is lower. • Although preferences of patients and at-risk individuals are similar to those of rheumatologists, the choice of preventive treatment may differ between groups; this is important as shared decision-making was a critical factor in treatment decision-making. • Preferences of physicians and recipients of treatment should take a central role in the design of clinical studies as well as in decisions to initiate treatments.

Methods for measuring patient preferences: an update and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review highlights the growing number of available methods used to measure patient preferences and discusses how this impacts preference research in rheumatology. Spurred by the growing role of preferences in regulatory decisions and drug development, researchers have begun applying preference methods to study questions beyond the clinical context. We explore these trends, provide case studies highlighting changes in measuring patient preferences, compare strengths and weaknesses of common stated-preference methods, and discuss considerations for the future use of these methods.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early literature on patient preferences often mimicked clinical practice, asking whether treatment A is better or worse than treatment B for a patient. Early applications of patient preference methods in rheumatology aimed to value different attributes of treatments, but remained focused on informing clinical questions. Spurred by interest in preferences by regulatory agencies and patient-centeredness throughout the product lifecycle, there are now a wide array of methods available to measure preference.

SUMMARY

Although these different preference methods have strengths and weaknesses, they serve to highlight the broad number of questions that could help rheumatology beyond the clinical context. Researchers in rheumatology now have the opportunity to better serve diverse stakeholders by considering how these methods could aid in clinical trial design, regulatory policy, and other elements of the medical product life cycle.

Treatment Mode Preferences in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Moving Toward Shared Decision-Making

PURPOSE

Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0-100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences.

RESULTS

100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making.

What do Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis value in treatment? A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of treatment preferences in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)] focussing on treatment attributes that patients' value, their relative importance, and the risk-benefit trade-offs that characterise patients' choices around treatment.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach was used. Attributes of interest were clinical efficacy; slowing of disease progression; risk of mild-moderate side effects; risk of severe side effects; frequency of administration; real-world product evidence; management of related conditions; and availability of a patient support programme. Using data from the DCE component, a restricted latent class model (LCM) was estimated to determine discrete 'classes' of treatment preferences.

RESULTS

In this analysis, 206 participants were included (AS n = 59; PsA n = 62; RA n = 85). Two classes were identified. For 'class 1' (59.9%), the most important attributes (across all treatment modalities) were preventing disease progression, clinical efficacy and risk of mild-to-moderate side effects. For 'class 2' (40.1%), clinical and non-clinical attributes were important, and attribute importance depended on treatment modality. Patient demographic and treatment characteristics did not predict class membership.

CONCLUSION

For most patients with IA, clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and risks of mild-to-moderate side effects are important treatment attributes. Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience had greater preference for injection treatments. For a subset of patients, patient support programmes and the frequency of administration were important. Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.Key Points• Most patients consider clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and the risk of mild-to-moderate side effects as important treatment attributes• Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience have greater preference for injection treatments.• For a subset of patients, patient support programmes, and the frequency of administration were important.• Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.

A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience

Biologic drugs (e.g. anti-tumor necrosis factors) are effective treatments for multiple chronic inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. Administration of biologic drugs is usually via subcutaneous self-injection, which provides many patient benefits compared to infusions including increased flexibility, reduced costs, and reduced caregiver burden. However, it is also associated with challenges such as needle phobia, patient treatment misconceptions and incorrect drug administration, and can be impacted by dexterity problems. Evidence suggests these problems, along with other drug administration challenges (e.g. patient forgetfulness, busy lifestyles, and polypharmacy), can reduce patient adherence to treatment. To combat these challenges, patient feedback has been used to develop a range of self-injection devices, including pre-filled syringes, pre-filled pens, and electronic injection devices. Providing different devices for drug administration gives patients the opportunity to choose a device that addresses the challenges they face as an individual. Research suggests involving patients in medical device development, providing patients with a choice of devices and enrolling individuals in patient support programs can empower patients to take control of their treatment journey. By providing a portfolio of self-injection devices, designed based on patient needs, patient experience will improve, potentially improving adherence and hence, long-term treatment outcomes.

Preventing rheumatoid arthritis: Preferences for and predicted uptake of preventive treatments among high risk individuals

OBJECTIVE

To understand preferences for and estimate the likely uptake of preventive treatments currently being evaluated in randomized controlled trials with individuals at increased risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Focus groups were used to identify key attributes of potential preventive treatment for RA (reduction in risk of RA, how treatment is taken, chance of side effects, certainty in estimates, health care providers opinion). A web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to people at-risk of developing RA, asking them to first choose their preferred of two hypothetical preventive RA treatments, and then between their preferred treatment and 'no treatment for now.' DCE data was analyzed using conditional logit regression to estimate the significance and relative importance of attributes in influencing preferences.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and eighty-eight first-degree relatives (60% female; 66% aged 18-39 years) completed all tasks in the survey. Fourteen out of fifteen attribute levels significantly influenced preferences for treatments. How treatment is taken (oral vs. infusion β0.983, p<0.001), increasing reduction in risk of RA (β0.922, p<0.001), health care professional preference (β0.900, p<0.001), and avoiding irreversible (β0.839, p<0.001) or reversible serious side effects (β0.799, p<0.001) were most influential. Predicted uptake was high for non-biologic drugs (e.g. 84% hydroxycholoroquine), but very low for atorvastatin (8%) and biologics (<6%).

CONCLUSION

Decisions to take preventative treatments are complex, and uptake depends on how treatments can compromise on convenience, potential risks and benefits, and recommendations/preferences of health care professionals. This evidence contributes to understanding whether different preventative treatment strategies are likely to be acceptable to target populations.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Despite the increased availability of biologic treatments indicated for severe asthma, patient and physician preferences for these medications remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to understand perceptions of biologic therapies, barriers to care with biologic medications, and preferences for biologic therapy attributes.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study involved quantitative surveys and qualitative telephone interviews with patients and physicians from the United States. Participants described preferences for relevant attributes, and barriers to use of biologic medications. Participants rated, ranked, and indicated importance of preferences for different levels of key attributes including: mode of administration, administration setting, dosing frequency, number of injections, and time to onset of effect. Other attributes unique to each group were also included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients and 25 physicians participated. Patients ranked out-of-pocket costs, mode of administration, time to onset of efficacy, and administration setting as the most important attributes. Physicians ranked mode of administration, time to onset of efficacy, dosing frequency, and insurance reimbursement/access as most important. Both groups expressed preferences for less frequent administrations (Q8W over Q4W or Q2W) (all P<0.01) and subcutaneous (SC) over intravenous injection (both P<0.0001). Key patient barriers to biologic medications include location of treatment, administration time, scheduling, cost/insurance coverage, number of injections, and mode of administration. Physicians identified patient candidacy, convincing patients, administration setting, mode of administration, cost, and administrative burden as key barriers to initiating therapy; and efficacy, speed of onset, convenience of administration, cost, and patient compliance as barriers to staying on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and physicians expressed strong preferences for less frequent dosing, SC administration, and faster onset. Cost/insurance coverage and convenience issues were key barriers to use. Increased awareness and understanding of preferences and barriers may be useful in facilitating physician-patient conversations with the goal of individualizing treatment.

Perspectives of patients, first-degree relatives and rheumatologists on preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative analysis

Background

There is growing evidence that it may be possible to identify people at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Assuming that effective interventions were available, this could mean that treatments introduced in the pre-symptomatic phase could prevent or delay the onset of the disease. Our study aimed to identify the potential attributes involved in decision-making around whether or not to take preventive treatment for RA, in order to inform the development of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to ascertain consumer preferences for a preventive treatment program for RA.

Methods

We conducted a focus group study to develop conceptual attributes, refine their meaning, and develop levels. Participants included RA patients, first-degree relatives of RA patients, and rheumatologists who were 18 years of age and over, could read and speak English, and could provide informed consent. Candidate attributes were refined through iterative rounds of data collection and analysis. All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then analyzed using the Framework Method to identify, compare, and contrast key conceptual attributes.

Results

Attributes identified from analysis included: accuracy of the test, certainty in estimates, method of administration, risk of RA and risk of reduction with treatment, risk and seriousness of side effects, person recommending the test, and opinion of the health care professional. Patients with RA, first-degree relatives of patients, and rheumatologists all valued the accuracy of testing due to concerns about false positives, and valued certainty in estimates of the test and preventive treatment. Patients and first-degree relatives desired this evidence from a range of sources, including discussions with people with the disease and health care professionals, and their preferences were modified by the strength of recommendation from their health care professional.

Conclusions

The role of the person who recommends a test and the opinion of a health care professional are novel potential attributes involved in decisions around whether or not to take preventive treatment for RA, that have not been included in previous DCEs.

Value of transfusion independence in severe aplastic anemia from patients' perspectives - a discrete choice experiment

Background

Aplastic anemia is a rare, serious blood disorder due to bone marrow failure to produce blood cells. Transfusions are used to reduce risk of bleeding, infection and relieve anemia symptoms. In severe patients, transfusions may be required more than once/week. It is unclear from the patient perspective the impact that transfusions have on quality of life. This study aimed to elicit patient preferences for attributes associated with severe aplastic anemia (SAA) treatment, including transfusion independence.

Methods

An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among patients with SAA who experienced insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy and transfusion dependence for ≥3 months in the past 2 years. Recruitment occurred through the Aplastic Anemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes International Foundation and referrals from clinical sites in the US and France. Respondents chose between hypothetical treatment pairs characterized by a common set of attributes: transfusions frequency, fatigue, risk of infection, and risk of serious bleeding. Conditional logit model with effects coding was used to estimate part-worth utilities for different attribute levels and the relative importance of each attribute. Predicted utility scores for transfusion frequency levels were reported.

Results

Thirty patients completed the survey. Most were age ≥ 40 years (73.3%), female (70.0%), and from the US (86.7%). 33.3% underwent bone marrow transplant; 36.7% received iron chelation therapy. Patients largely agreed that transfusion independence would result in less burden on time and costs, greater control and quality of life, less fatigue (86.7% noted each) and less scheduling around medical appointments (83.3%). The DCE found highest relative importance for risk of bleeding (0.30), followed by risk of infection (0.28), fatigue (0.23), and frequency of transfusions (0.20). More frequent transfusions resulted in lower utility, particularly when increasing monthly transfusions frequency from 4 (0.57) to 8 (0.35).

Conclusions

Our study showed that higher utility was associated with fewer transfusions in SAA patients with insufficient response to immunosuppressive therapy. While risk of bleeding, risk of infection, and fatigue were more important for patient treatment preferences, frequency of transfusions was also important.

Identifying the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial in rheumatoid arthritis: the role of a discrete choice experiment

Background

This study sought to establish the preferences of people with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) about the best outcome measure for a health and fitness intervention randomised controlled trial (RCT). The results of this study were used to inform the choice of the trial primary and secondary outcome measure.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to assess people’s preferences regarding a number of outcomes (foot and ankle pain, fatigue, mobility, ability to perform daily activities, choice of footwear) as well as different schedules and frequency of delivery for the health and fitness intervention. The outcomes were chosen based on literature review, clinician recommendation and patients’ focus groups. The DCE was constructed in SAS software using the D-efficiency criteria. It compared hypothetical scenarios with varying levels of outcomes severity and intervention schedule. Preference weights were estimated using appropriate econometric models. The partial log-likelihood method was used to assess the attribute importance.

Results

One hundred people with RA completed 18 choice sets. Overall, people selected foot and ankle pain as the most important outcome, with mobility being nearly as important. There was no evidence of differential preference between intervention schedules or frequency of delivery.

Conclusions

Foot and ankle pain can be considered the patient choice for primary outcome of an RCT relating to a health and fitness intervention. This study demonstrated that, by using the DCE method, it is possible to incorporate patients’ preferences at the design stage of a RCT. This approach ensures patient involvement at early stages of health care design.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Benefit-risk trade-offs for treatment decisions in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: focus on the patient perspective

Given the increasing number of available treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with varying efficacy and safety profiles, it is critical to understand the level of trade-offs that patients are willing to make between benefits and risks. Adult patients with moderate to severe RA were invited to participate in a discrete choice experiment that solicited their preferences for hypothetical RA treatments. Each participant was presented with 14 choice cards asking about their preference between two hypothetical RA treatments with varying levels of efficacy, adverse events, and process-related attributes. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the association between the attributes and the patient's decision and risk-increases were calculated. 510 eligible patients with moderate to severe RA completed the study. The average age of the participants was 56.4 years, 64.7% were female, and 45.1% received biologic agents. To achieve a 50% improvement in physical function, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 91.1, 4.7, and 18.4% for abnormal laboratory results, cancer, and serious infection, respectively. Similarly, to achieve a 50% reduction in RA-related pain, patients were willing to accept risk-increases of 70.6, 3.7, and 14.2% for each AE. Moreover, patients were willing to trade risk-increases of 42.0, 2.2, and 8.5% for each AE to obtain a 50% reduction in the number of swollen joints. Patients with moderate to severe RA are willing to accept increased treatment risks to achieve improved physical function and disease control. These attributes are helpful to clinicians to make informed treatment choices.

Preferences for 'New' Treatments Diminish in the Face of Ambiguity

New products usually offer advantages over existing products, but in health care, most new drugs are 'me-too', comparable in effectiveness and side effects to existing drugs, but with a more ambiguous evidence base around adverse effects. Despite this, new treatments drive increased health care spending, suggesting a preference for 'newness' in this setting. We explore (1) whether preferences for treatments labeled 'new' exist and (2) persist once the ambiguity in the evidence base reflecting newness is described. We use a Canadian general population sample (n = 2837) characterized by their innovativeness in adopting new products in normal markets. We found that innovators/early adopters (n = 173) had significant preferences for 'newer' treatments (B = 0.162, p = 0.038) irrespective of comparable benefits and side effects and all respondents had significant preferences for less ambiguity in benefit/side effect estimates. Notably, when 'newness' was combined with ambiguity, no significant preferences for new treatments were observed regardless of respondent innovativeness. We conclude that preferences for new products exist for some people in health care markets but disappear when the implication of ambiguity in the evidence base for new treatments is communicated. Physicians should avoid describing treatments as 'new' or be mindful to qualify the implications of 'new' treatments in terms of evidence ambiguity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A discrete choice experiment to explore patients' willingness to risk disease relapse from treatment withdrawal in psoriatic arthritis

The objective of this study is to assess patient preferences for treatment-related benefits and risk of disease relapse in the management of low disease states of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Focus groups with patients and a literature review were undertaken to determine the characteristics of treatment and symptoms of PsA important to patients. Patient preferences were assessed using a discrete choice experiment which compared hypothetical treatment profiles of the risk and benefits of treatment withdrawal. The risk outcome included increased risk of disease relapse, while benefit outcomes included reduced sickness/nausea from medication and changes in health-related quality of life. Each patient completed 12 choice sets comparing treatment profiles. Preference weights were estimated using a logic regression model, and the maximum acceptable risk in disease relapse for a given improvement in benefit outcomes was elicited. Final sample included 136 patients. Respondents attached the greatest importance to eliminating severe side effects of sickness/nausea and the least importance to a change in risk of relapse. Respondents were willing to accept an increase in the risk of relapse of 32.6 % in order to eliminate the side effects of sickness/nausea. For improvements in health status, the maximum acceptable risk in relapse was comparable to a movement from some to no sickness/nausea. The study suggests that patients in low disease states of PsA are willing to accept greater risks of relapse for improvements in side effects of sickness/nausea and overall health status, with the most important benefit attribute being the elimination of severe sickness or nausea.

Quantitative analysis of multiple sclerosis patients' preferences for drug treatment: a best-worst scaling study

BACKGROUND

With recent developments in drug therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS), new treatment options have become available presenting patients with complex treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to elicit patients' preferences for different attributes of MS drug therapy.

METHODS

A representative sample of patients with MS across Canada (n=189) participated in a best-worst scaling study to quantify preferences for different attributes of MS drug therapy, including delaying progression, improving symptoms, preventing relapse, minor side effects, rare but serious adverse events (SAEs), and route of administration. Conditional logit models were fitted to estimate the relative importance of each attribute in influencing patients' preferences.

RESULTS

A latent-class analysis revealed heterogeneity of preferences across respondents, with preferences differing across five classes. The most important attributes of drug therapy were the avoidance of SAEs for three classes and the improvement of symptoms for two other classes. Only a smaller group of patients demonstrated a specific preference for avoiding SAEs, and route of administration.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that preferences for drug therapy among patients with MS are different, some of which can be explained by experiences with their disease and treatment. These findings can help to inform the focus of interactions that healthcare practitioners have with patients with MS, as well as further drug development.

Attitude to health risk in the Canadian population: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Risk is a ubiquitous part of health care. Understanding how people respond to risks is important for predicting how populations make health decisions. Our objective was to seek preliminary descriptive insights into the attitude to health risk in the Canadian population and factors associated with heterogeneity in risk attitude.

METHODS

We used a large market-research panel to survey (in English and French) a representative sample of the Canadian general population that reflected the age, sex and geography of the population. The survey included the Health-Risk Attitude Scale, which predicts how a person resolves risky health decisions related to treatment, prevention of disease and health-related behaviour. In addition, we assessed participants' numeracy and risk understanding, as well as income band and level of education. We summarized the responses, and we explored the independent associations between demographics, numeracy, risk understanding and risk attitude in multivariable models.

RESULTS

Of 6780 respondents, 4949 (73.0%) were averse to health risks; however, but there was considerable heterogeneity in the magnitude of risk aversion. We found significant gradients of risk averse attitudes with increasing age and being female (p < 0.001) using the multivariable model. French-speaking participants appeared to be more risk averse than those who were English-speaking (p < 0.001), as were individuals scoring higher on the Subjective Numeracy Scale (p < 0.001).

INTERPREATION

In general, Canadians were averse to health risks, but we found that a sizeable, identifiable group of risk takers exists. Heterogeneity in preferences for risk can explain variations in health care utilization in the context of patient-centred care. Understanding risk preference heterogeneity can help guide policy and assist in patient-physician decisions.

How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Many new drugs do not offer clinical benefits over existing treatments but provide potentially more convenient modes of administration. These include how frequently a treatment is given, how it is delivered, who gives the treatment, and whether there are any associated local adverse reactions. We reviewed studies in rheumatology that ask patients and society the value they assign to these aspects of treatment in comparison to the benefits and side effects and costs. We find that mode of administration is generally valued by both patients and society, but the extent depends on the context of the disease and the study participants. Respondents with a more severe disease seem to assign less value to mode and frequency of administration, and prioritize improvement in pain and function. However, patients with chronic, but less severe, disease seem to place greater value on mode of administration. Furthermore, respondents with experience of the treatments perceived to be more inconvenient assigned lower value to more convenient treatments. Unfortunately, we found few examples of studies that reported values in a format that could easily be incorporated into resource allocation decisions by payers.