Comparison of preferences of healthcare professionals and MS patients for attributes of disease-modifying drugs:A best-worst scaling

Background The choice between disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) becomes more often a shared decision between the patient and the neurologist and MS nurse. This study aimed to assess which DMD attributes are most important for the healthcare professionals in selecting a DMD for a patient. Subsequently, within this perspective, the neurologists' and nurses' perspectives were compared. Lastly, the healthcare professionals' perspective was compared with the patients' perspective to detect any differences that may need attention in the communication about DMDs. DesignA best-worst scaling (BWS) was conducted among 27 neurologists and 33 MS nurses treating patients with MS to determine the importance of 27 DMD attributes. These attributes were identified through three focus groups with MS patients in a previous study (N=19). Relative importance scores (RISs) were estimated for each attribute. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to compare the different perspectives. ResultsAccording to the neurologists and nurses, safety of the DMD was the most important DMD attribute in the treatment decision, closely followed by effect on disability progression, quality of life and relapse rate. Patients with MS agreed with the importance of the last three attributes, but valued safety significantly lower (b=-2.59, P ConclusionsThis study suggests that, overall, neurologists and nurses regard the same DMD attributes as important as MS patients with the notable exception of safety. This study provides valuable information for the development of interventions to support shared decision making and highlights which attributes of DMDs may need additional attention

Experts' preferences for sarcopenia outcomes: a discrete-choice experiment from a working group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) in collaboration with the European Union of Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess experts' preference for sarcopenia outcomes. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was conducted among 37 experts (medical doctors and researchers) from different countries around the world. In the survey, they were repetitively asked to choose which one of two hypothetical patients suffering from sarcopenia deserves the most a treatment. The two hypothetical patients differed in five pre-selected sarcopenia outcomes: quality of life, mobility, domestic activities, fatigue and falls. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate the relative importance of each attribute. RESULTS: All sarcopenia outcomes were shown to be significant, and thus, important for experts. Overall, the most important sarcopenia outcome was falls (27%) followed by domestic activities and mobility (24%), quality of life (15%) and fatigue (10%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to patient's preferences, experts considered falls as a more important outcome of sarcopenia, while the outcomes fatigue and difficulties in domestic activities were considered as less important

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of Shared Decision Making for Choosing between Disease-Modifying Drugs for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the Netherlands:A State Transition Model

Background Up to 31% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) discontinue treatment with disease-modifying drug (DMD) within the first year, and of the patients who do continue, about 40% are nonadherent. Shared decision making may decrease nonadherence and discontinuation rates, but evidence in the context of RRMS is limited. Shared decision making may, however, come at additional costs. This study aimed to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of shared decision making for RRMS in comparison with usual care, from a (limited) societal perspective over a lifetime. Methods An exploratory economic evaluation was conducted by adapting a previously developed state transition model that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a range of DMDs for RRMS in comparison with the best supportive care. Three potential effects of shared decision making were explored: 1) a change in the initial DMD chosen, 2) a decrease in the patient's discontinuation in using the DMD, and 3) an increase in adherence to the DMD. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of a scenario that combined the 3 effects were conducted. Results Each effect separately and the 3 effects combined resulted in higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs due to the increased utilization of DMD. A decrease in discontinuation of DMDs influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) most. The combined scenario resulted in an ICER of euro17,875 per QALY gained. The ICER was sensitive to changes in several parameters. Conclusion This study suggests that shared decision making for DMDs could potentially be cost-effective, especially if shared decision making would help to decrease treatment discontinuation. Our results, however, may depend on the assumed effects on treatment choice, persistence, and adherence, which are actually largely unknown

Value of information analysis of an early intervention for subthreshold panic disorder: Healthcare versus societal perspective

Background Panic disorder is associated with high productivity costs. These costs, which should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) from a societal perspective, have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness estimates. However, they are often omitted in published CEAs. It is therefore uncertain whether choosing a societal perspective changes priority setting in future research as compared to a healthcare perspective. Objectives To identify research priorities regarding the cost-effectiveness of an early intervention for subthreshold panic disorder using value of information (VOI) analysis and to investigate to what extent priority setting depends on the perspective. Methods We calculated the cost-effectiveness of an early intervention for panic disorder from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective. We performed a VOI analysis, which estimates the expected value of eliminating the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness estimates, for both perspectives. Results From a healthcare perspective the early intervention was more effective at higher costs compared to usual care (€17,144 per QALY), whereas it was cost-saving from a societal perspective. Additional research to eliminate parameter uncertainty was valued at €129.7 million from a healthcare perspective and €29.5 million from a societal perspective. Additional research on the early intervention utility gain was most valuable from a healthcare perspective, whereas from a societal perspective additional research would generate little added value. Conclusions Priority setting for future research differed substantially according to the perspective. Our study underlines that the health-economic perspective of CEAs on interventions for panic disorder must be chosen carefully in order to avoid inappropriate choices in research priorities

The Relative Importance of Education and Criminal Justice Costs and Benefits in Economic Evaluations

Objectives Mental and behavioural disorders (MBDs) and interventions targeting MBDs lead to costs and cost savings in the healthcare sector, but also in other sectors. The latter are referred to as intersectoral costs and benefits (ICBs). Interventions targeting MBDs often lead to ICBs in the education and criminal justice sectors, yet these are rarely included in economic evaluations. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes held by health economists and health technology assessment experts towards education and criminal justice ICBs in economic evaluations and to quantify the relative importance of these ICBs in the context of MBDs. Methods An online survey containing open-ended questions and two best–worst scaling object case studies was conducted in order to prioritise a list of 20 education ICBs and 20 criminal justice ICBs. Mean relative importance scores for each ICB were generated using hierarchical Bayes analysis. Results Thirty-nine experts completed the survey. The majority of the respondents (68%) reported that ICBs were relevant, but only a few (32%) included them in economic evaluations. The most important education ICBs were “special education school attendance”, “absenteeism from school”, and “reduced school attainment”. The most important criminal justice ICBs were “decreased chance of committing a crime as a consequence/effect of mental health programmes/interventions”, “jail and prison expenditures”, and “long-term pain and suffering of victims/victimisation”. Conclusions This study identified the most important education and criminal justice ICBs for economic evaluations of interventions targeting MBDs and suggests that it could be relevant to include these ICBs in economic evaluations

Interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications : an updated systematic review

Summary: An earlier systematic review on interventions to improve adherence and persistence was updated. Fifteen studies investigating the effectiveness of patient education, drug regimen, monitoring and supervision, and interdisciplinary collaboration as a single or multi-component intervention were appraised. Multicomponent interventions with active patient involvement were more effective. Introduction: This study was conducted to update a systematic literature review on interventions to improve adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications. Methods: A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline (using PubMed), Embase (using Ovid), Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, CINHAL, and PsycINFO to search for original studies that assessed interventions to improve adherence (comprising initiation, implementation, and discontinuation) and persistence to anti-osteoporosis medications among patients with osteoporosis, published between July 2012 and December 2018. Quality of included studies was assessed. Results: Of 585 studies initially identified, 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of which 12 were randomized controlled trials. Interventions were classified as (1) patient education (n = 9), (2) drug regimen (n = 3), (3) monitoring and supervision (n = 2), and (4) interdisciplinary collaboration (n = 1). In most subtypes of interventions, mixed results on adherence (and persistence) were found. Multicomponent interventions based on patient education and counseling were the most effective interventions when aiming to increase adherence and/or persistence to osteoporosis medications. Conclusion: This updated review suggests that patient education, monitoring and supervision, change in drug regimen, and interdisciplinary collaboration have mixed results on medication adherence and persistence, with more positive effects for multicomponent interventions with active patient involvement. Compared with the previous review, a shift towards more patient involvement, counseling and shared decision-making, was seen, suggesting that individualized solutions, based on collaboration between the patient and the healthcare provider, are needed to improve adherence and persistence to osteoporosis medications

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: An expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

Background: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. Objectives: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. Methods: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. Results: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. Conclusions: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness

Rationale and Plan for Vitamin D Food Fortification : A Review and Guidance Paper

Vitamin D deficiency can lead to musculoskeletal diseases such as rickets and osteomalacia, but vitamin D supplementation may also prevent extraskeletal diseases such as respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations, pregnancy complications and premature deaths. Vitamin D has a unique metabolism as it is mainly obtained through synthesis in the skin under the influence of sunlight (i.e., ultraviolet-B radiation) whereas intake by nutrition traditionally plays a relatively minor role. Dietary guidelines for vitamin D are based on a consensus that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are used to assess vitamin D status, with the recommended target concentrations ranging from >= 25 to >= 50 nmol/L (>= 10->= 20 ng/mL), corresponding to a daily vitamin D intake of 10 to 20 mu g (400-800 international units). Most populations fail to meet these recommended dietary vitamin D requirements. In Europe, 25(OH)D concentrations <30 nmol/L (12 ng/mL) and <50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) are present in 13.0 and 40.4% of the general population, respectively. This substantial gap between officially recommended dietary reference intakes for vitamin D and the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the general population requires action from health authorities. Promotion of a healthier lifestyle with more outdoor activities and optimal nutrition are definitely warranted but will not erase vitamin D deficiency and must, in the case of sunlight exposure, be well balanced with regard to potential adverse effects such as skin cancer. Intake of vitamin D supplements is limited by relatively poor adherence (in particular in individuals with low-socioeconomic status) and potential for overdosing. Systematic vitamin D food fortification is, however, an effective approach to improve vitamin D status in the general population, and this has already been introduced by countries such as the US, Canada, India, and Finland. Recent advances in our knowledge on the safety of vitamin D treatment, the dose-response relationship of vitamin D intake and 25(OH)D levels, as well as data on the effectiveness of vitamin D fortification in countries such as Finland provide a solid basis to introduce and modify vitamin D food fortification in order to improve public health with this likewise cost-effective approach.Peer reviewe