nach oben

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Erschienen in:

01.02.2015 | Leading Article

Caregiver Preferences for Emerging Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Treatments: A Comparison of Best-Worst Scaling and Conjoint Analysis

verfasst von: Ilene L. Hollin, Holly L. Peay, John F. P. Bridges

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 1/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Through Patient-Focused Drug Development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents the perspective of patients and caregivers and are currently conducting 20 public meetings on a limited number of disease areas. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (PPMD), an advocacy organization for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), has demonstrated a community-engaged program of preference research that would complement the FDA’s approach.

Objective

Our objective was to compare two stated-preference methods, best-worst scaling (BWS) and conjoint analysis, within a study measuring caregivers’ DMD-treatment preferences.

Methods

Within one survey, two preference-elicitation methods were applied to 18 potential treatments incorporating six attributes and three levels. For each treatment profile, caregivers identified the best and worst feature and intention to use the treatment. We conducted three analyses to compare the elicitation methods using parameter estimates, conditional attribute importance and policy simulations focused on the 18 treatment profiles. For each, concordance between the results was compared using Spearman’s rho.

Results

BWS and conjoint analysis produced similar parameter estimates (p < 0.01); conditional attribute importance (p < 0.01); and policy simulations (p < 0.01). Greatest concordance was observed for the benefit and risk parameters, with differences observed for nausea and knowledge about the drug—where a lack of monotonicity was observed when using conjoint analysis.

Conclusions

The observed concordance between approaches demonstrates the reliability of the stated-preference methods. Given the simplicity of combining BWS and conjoint analysis on single profiles, a combination approach is easily adopted. Minor irregularities for the conjoint-analysis results could not be explained by additional analyses and needs to be the focus of future research.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Bushby K, Finkel R, Birnkrant DJ, Case LE, Clemens PR, Cripe L, et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(1):77–93.PubMedCrossRef

Eagle M, Baudouin SV, Chandler C, Giddings DR, Bullock R, Bushby K. Survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: improvements in life expectancy since 1967 and the impact of home nocturnal ventilation. Neuromuscul Disord. 2002;12(10):926–9.PubMedCrossRef

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy among males aged 5–24 years—Four states, 2007. MMWR Morb Wkly Rep. 2009; 58:1119–22.

Emery AE. Population frequencies of inherited neuromuscular diseases—a world survey. Neuromuscul Disord. 1991;1(1):19–29.PubMedCrossRef

Pangalila RF, van den Bos GA, Stam HJ, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WB, Roebroeck ME. Subjective caregiver burden of parents of adults with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(12):988–96.PubMedCrossRef

Kenneson A, Bobo JK. The effect of caregiving on women in families with Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy. Health Soc Care Commun. 2010;18(5):520–8.CrossRef

Larkindale J, Yang W, Hogan PF, Simon CJ, Zhang Y, Jain A, et al. Cost of illness for neuromuscular diseases in the United States. Muscle Nerve. 2014;49(3):431–8.PubMedCrossRef

Ouyang L, Grosse SD, Kenneson A. Health care utilization and expenditures for children and young adults with muscular dystrophy in a privately insured population. J Child Neurol. 2008;23(8):883-8.

Ouyang L, Grosse SD, Fox MH, Bolen J. A national profile of health care and family impacts of children with muscular dystrophy and special health care needs in the United States. J Child Neurol. 2012;27(5):569–76.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Angelini C. The role of corticosteroids in muscular dystrophy: a critical appraisal. Muscle Nerve. 2007;36(4):424–35.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bushby K, Muntoni F, Urtizberea A, Hughes R, Griggs R. Report on the 124th ENMC International Workshop. Treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy; defining the gold standards of management in the use of corticosteroids 2–4 April 2004, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord. 2004;14(8):526–34.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Biggar W, Harris V, Eliasoph L, Alman B. Long-term benefits of deflazacort treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy in their second decade. Neuromuscular Disord. 2006;16(4):249–55.CrossRef

13.

Govoni A, Magri F, Brajkovic S, Zanetta C, Faravelli I, Corti S, et al. Ongoing therapeutic trials and outcome measures for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2013;70(23):4585–602.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Putting Patients First: Recommendations to speed responsible access to new therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and other rare, serious and life-threatening neurologic disorders. Hackensack; 2013.

15.

Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Guidance for Industry: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Developing Drugs for Treatment over the Spectrum of Disease. Hackensack; 2014.

16.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Enhancing Benefit-Risk Assessment in Regulatory Decision-Making. Silver Spring; 2014. http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm326192.htm. Accessed June 26 2014.

17.

Mullard A. Patient-focused drug development programme takes first steps. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(9):651–2.PubMedCrossRef

18.

“Prescription Drug User Fee Act Patient-Focused Drug Development; Announcement of Disease Areas for Meetings Conducted in Fiscal Years 2013–2015”. Federal Register 2013; 78:21613–4.

19.

Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JF. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–37.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. Patient. 2010;3(4):275–83.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Molassiotis A, Emsley R, Ashcroft D, Caress A, Ellis J, Wagland R, et al. Applying best-worst scaling methodology to establish delivery preferences of a symptom supportive care intervention in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):199–204.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Marti J. A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(1):87–97.PubMedCrossRef

23.

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(1):76.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Swancutt DR, Greenfield SM, Wilson S. Women’s colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8(1):2.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Coast J, Salisbury C, De Berker D, Noble A, Horrocks S, Peters T, et al. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(2):387–92.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Gallego G, Bridges JFP, Flynn T, Blauvelt BM, Niessen LW. Using best-worst scaling in horizon scanning for hepatocellular carcinoma technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(03):339–46. doi:10.1017/S026646231200027X.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Market. 1992:12–25.

28.

Marley AA, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol. 2005;49(6):464–80.CrossRef

29.

Bridges J, Kinter E, Kidane L, Heinzen R, McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: recent trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1970–2007. Patient. 2008;1(4):273–82.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best-worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–67.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Ryan M, Watson V, Amaya-Amaya M. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2003;3(6):717–27.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Louviere JJ, Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J Bus Res. 2008;61(9):903–11.CrossRef

33.

Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47(2):97–123.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Srinivasan V. A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Dec Sci. 1988;19(2):295–305.CrossRef

35.

Jaeger SR, Jørgensen AS, Aaslyng MD, Bredie WL. Best–worst scaling: an introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products. Food Qual Prefer. 2008;19(6):579–88.CrossRef

36.

Cohen S, Orme B. What’s your preference? Market Res. 2004;16(2):32–7.

37.

Cohen S, editor. Maximum difference scaling: improved measures of importance and preference for segmentation. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sawtooth Software, Inc; 2003.

38.

Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, Netten A, Malley J, Forder J, et al. Best–worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: an empirical comparison using social care data. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1717–27.PubMedCrossRef

39.

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):171–89.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, Mühlbacher A. Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks? Patient. 2011;4(4):267–75.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Kuhfeld W. Orthogonal arrays [TS-723]. Cary: SAS [online]. 2010.

42.

Kinter ET, Prior TJ, Carswell CI, Bridges JF. A comparison of two experimental design approaches in applying conjoint analysis in patient-centered outcomes research. Patient. 2012;5(4):279–94.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients. Patient. 2008;1(4):273–82.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher 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.

45.

Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Jon AK, Robert Cameron M, Presser S et al. Referendum design and contingent valuation: the NOAA panel’s no-vote recommendation. Rev Econ Stat. 1998;80(2):335–8.

46.

Groothuis PA, Whitehead JC. Does don’t know mean no? Analysis of “don’t know” responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. Appl Econ. 2002;34(15):1935–40.CrossRef

47.

McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–42.

Titel: Caregiver Preferences for Emerging Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Treatments: A Comparison of Best-Worst Scaling and Conjoint Analysis
verfasst von: Ilene L. Hollin
Holly L. Peay
John F. P. Bridges
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 1/2015
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0104-x

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Caregiver Preferences for Emerging Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Treatments: A Comparison of Best-Worst Scaling and Conjoint Analysis

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

Peer Support and Mentorship in a US Rare Disease Community: Findings from the Cystinosis in Emerging Adulthood Study

The Imperative for Patient-Centred Research to Develop Better Quality Services in Rare Diseases

Developing a Patient-Directed Policy Framework for Managing Orphan and Ultra-Orphan Drugs Throughout Their Lifecycle

Adopting a Sustainable Community of Practice Model when Developing a Service to Support Patients with Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB): A Stakeholder-Centered Approach

How Narrative Journalistic Stories Can Communicate the Individual’s Challenges of Daily Living with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Personal Reflections of a Patient Representative in an Appraisal Committee