The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-018-00933-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To determine how patients define acromegaly disease activity and treatment success and to quantify from the patients’ perspective the relative importance of each disease parameter included in the ACRODAT®.
One hundred acromegaly patients on medical therapy (mean age = 47.1 years; SD = 11.96) completed an online preference study evaluating hypothetical patient profiles described in terms of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) levels, tumor size, comorbid conditions, signs/symptoms, and quality of life (QoL). Participants first completed a single-profile task experiment by rating 20 single patient profiles as exhibiting stable, mild, or significant disease activity based on treatment success. Next, participants completed a double-profile discrete choice experiment (DCE) by selecting the patient that was doing “better” from 15 profile pairs. Results were analyzed using logistic and conditional logistic models.
When choosing between stable vs. mild or significant disease activity, signs/symptoms, tumor size, and IGF-I levels were weighted equally; IGF-I and signs and symptoms were valued equally when selecting mild vs. significant disease activity. The DCE showed that, statistically, all disease parameters, except comorbid conditions, predicted health status equally. Tumor size and IGF-I levels each accounted for 23% of the decision-making process; QoL, signs/symptoms, and comorbid conditions accounted for 21%, 19%, and 14%, respectively.
All five ACRODAT® parameters had some influence on disease activity from the patients’ perspective. To account for patients’ preferences and optimize treatment and outcomes, a holistic disease management approach should be employed.
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 591 KB)11102_2018_933_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Holdaway IM, Rajasoorya C (1999) Epidemiology of acromegaly. Pituitary 2(1):29–41 CrossRef
Burton T, Le Nestour E, Neary M, Ludlam WH (2016) Incidence and prevalence of acromegaly in a large US health plan database. Pituitary 19(3):262–267 CrossRef
Colao A, Ferone D, Marzullo P, Lombardi G (2004) Systemic complications of acromegaly: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management. Endocr Rev 25(1):102–152 CrossRef
Holdaway IM, Bolland MJ, Gamble GD (2008) A meta-analysis of the effect of lowering serum levels of GH and IGF-I on mortality in acromegaly. Eur J Endocrinol 159(2):89–95 CrossRef
Ritvonen E, Löyttyniemi E, Jaatinen P, Ebeling T, Moilanen L, Nuutila P, Kauppinen-Mäkelin R, Schalin-Jäntti C (2016) Mortality in acromegaly: a 20-year follow-up study. Endocr Relat Cancer 23(6):469–480 CrossRef
Lavrentaki A, Paluzzi A, Wass JAH, Karavitaki N (2017) Epidemiology of acromegaly: review of population studies. Pituitary 20(1):4–9 CrossRef
Katznelson L, Laws ER Jr, Melmed S, Molitch ME, Murad MH, Utz A, Wass JAH (2014) Acromegaly: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99(11):3933–3951 CrossRef
Chanson P, Salanave S (2008) Acromegaly. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3:17 CrossRef
Neggers SJ, van Aken MO, de Herder WW, Feelders RA, Janssen JA, Badia X, Webb SM, van der Lely AJ (2008) Quality of life in acromegalic patients during long-term somatostatin analog treatment with and without pegvisomant. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93(10):3853–3859 CrossRef
van der Lely AJ, Gomez R, Pleil A, Badia X, Brue T, Buchfelder M, Burman P, Clemmons D, Ghigo E, Jorgensen JOL, Luger A, van der Lans-Bussemaker J, Webb SM, Strasburger CJ (2017) Development of ACRODAT®, a new software medical device to assess disease activity in patients with acromegaly. Pituitary 20(6):692–701 CrossRef
Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC). Patient centered benefit-risk project report: a framework for incorporating information on patient preferences regarding benefit and risk into regulatory assessments of new medical technology. Arlington: Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC). Retrived from http://mdic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MDIC_PCBR_Framework_Proof5_Web.pdf (2015). Accessed 25 Oct 2018
Irony T, Ho M, Christopher S, Levitan B (2016) Incorporating patient preferences into medical device benefit-risk assessments. Stat Biopharm Res 8(3):230–236 CrossRef
Jackson Y, Lundie M, Flood E, Rhoten S, Pleil AM (2018) AcroVoice: The patient perspective on Acromegaly disease activity. Presented at The Endocrine Society’s 100th Annual Meeting: Chicago, IL, USA
Kjaer T, Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D, Hart-Hansen K (2006) Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? Health Econ 15(11):121 CrossRef
Kanninen B (2002) Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J Mark Res 39:214–227 CrossRef
Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 31:545–557 CrossRef
ChoiceMetrics (2018) Ngene 1.2 User Manual & Reference Guide. Australia
Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, Bresnahan BW, Kanninen B, Bridges JF (2013) Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health 16(1):3–13 CrossRef
Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, Ijzerman MJ, Bridges JF (2016) Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 19(4):300–315 CrossRef
Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, Neuland CY, Whang JM, McMurry-Heath M, Hauber AB, Irony T (2015) Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc 29(10):2984–2993 CrossRef
Hollin IL, Young C, Hanson C, Bridges JFP, Peay H (2016) Developing a patient-centered benefit-risk survey: a community-engaged process. Value Health 19(6):751–757 CrossRef
Orme B (1998) Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth Software Technical Paper, Sequim
De Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA (2015) Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 8(5):373–384 CrossRef
- AcroVoice: eliciting the patients’ perspective on acromegaly disease activity
Ellen M. Janssen
- Springer US
The Official Journal of the Pituitary Society
Print ISSN: 1386-341X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7403
Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Inneren Medizin
Mail Icon II