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

A Discrete Choice Experiment to assess patients’ preferences for HIV treatment in the rural population in Colombia

"Aim: To elicit patients’ preferences for HIV treatment of the rural population in Colombia. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE), conducted in a HIV clinic in Bogotá, was used to examine the trade-off between five HIV treatment attributes: effect on life expectancy, effect on physical activity, risk of moderate side-effects, accessibility to clinic, and economic costs to access controls. Attributes selection was based on literature review, expert consultation and a focus group with six patients. An efficient experimental design was used to define two versions of the questionnaire with each of 12 choice sets and a dominance task was added to check reliability. A mixed logit model was then used to analyse the data and sub-group analyses were conducted on the basis of age, gender, education, and sexual preference. Results: A total of 129 HIV patients were included for analysis. For all treatment attributes, significant differences between at least two levels were observed, meaning that all attributes were significant predictors of choice. Patients valued the effect on physical activity (conditional relative importance of 27.5%) and the effect on life expectancy (26.0%) the most. Sub-group analyses regard age and education showed significant differences: younger patients and high educated patients valued the effect on physical activity the most important, whereas older patients mostly valued the effect on life expectancy and low educated patients mostly valued the accessibility to clinic. Limitations: One potential limitation is selection bias, as only patients from one HIV clinic were reached. Additionally, questionnaires were partly administered in the waiting rooms, which potentially led to noise in the data. Conclusions: This study suggests that all HIV treatment characteristics included in this DCE were important and that HIV patients from rural Colombia valued short-term efficacy (i.e. effect on physical activity) and long-term efficacy (i.e. effect on life expectancy) the most. © 2020, © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor and Francis Group.

A Discrete Choice Experiment to assess patients’ preferences for HIV treatment in the urban population in Colombia

Aim: This study aimed to assess patients' preferences for HIV treatment in an urban Colombian population. Methods: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was conducted. Urban Colombian HIV patients were asked to repetitively choose between two hypothetical treatments that differ in regard to five attributes 'effect on life expectancy', 'effect on physical activity', 'risk of moderate side effects, 'accessibility to clinic' and 'economic cost to access controls'. Twelve choice sets were made using an efficient design. A Mixed Logit Panel Model was used for the analysis and subgroup analyses were performed according to age, gender, education level and sexual preference. Results: A total of 224 HIV patients were included. All attributes were significant, indicating that there were differences between at least two levels of each attribute. Patients preferred to be able to perform all physical activity without difficulty, to have large positive effects on life expectancy, to travel less than 2 h, to have lower risk of side-effects and to have subsidized travel costs. The attributes 'effect on physical activity' and 'effects on life expectancy' were deemed the most important. Sub-analyses showed that higher educated patients placed more importance on the large positive effects of HIV treatment, and a more negative preference for subsidized travel cost (5% level). Limitations: A potential limitation is selection bias as it is difficult to make a systematic urban/rural division of respondents. Additional, questionnaires were partly administered in the waiting rooms, which potentially led to some noise in the data. Conclusions: Findings suggests that short-term efficacy (i.e. effect on physical activity) and long-term efficacy (i.e. effect on life expectancy) are the most important treatment characteristics for HIV urban patients in Colombia. Preference data could provide relevant information for clinical and policy decision-making to optimize HIV care

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

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

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

HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies

This research sought to assess whether and how patient preference (PP) data are currently used within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and affiliated organizations involved in technology/drug appraisals and assessments. An exploratory survey was developed by the PP Project Subcommittee of the HTA International Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group to gain insight into the use, impact, and role of PP data in HTA, as well as the perceived barriers to its incorporation. Forty members of HTA bodies and affiliated organizations from twelve countries completed the online survey. PP data were reported to be formally considered as part of the HTA evidence review process by 82.5 percent of the respondents, while 39.4 percent reported that most of the appraisals and assessments within their organization in the past year had submitted PP data. The leading reason for why PP data were not submitted in most assessments was time/resource constraints followed by lack of clarity on PP data impact. Participants reported that PP data had a moderate level of influence on the deliberative process and outcome of the decision, but a higher level of influence on the decision’s quality. Most (81.8 percent) felt patient advocacy groups should be primarily responsible for generating and submitting this type of evidence. Insights from the survey confirm the use of PP data in HTA but reveal barriers to its broader and more meaningful integration. Encouragingly, participants believe obstacles can be overcome, paving the way for a second phase of research involving in-depth collaborative workshops with HTA representatives

Global article collection : essential reads from around the world

At the beginning of 2022, the Journal of Medical Economics (JME) published a Commentary highlighting the top five cited articles in 2021 [1]. This Commentary also included six articles from 2021—chosen by the Editor in Chief and Deputy Editor in Chief—that had a significant impact on the study of health economics. However, the JME editorial team noticed that the articles in the Commentary focused on research in the U.S. rather than reflecting the global diversity of the Journal’s content. This realization led to the publication of this Commentary that represents authors and articles from regions beyond North America. To create this Commentary, the Journal’s Editorial Board members and some of its highly-cited authors selected impactful and thought-provoking articles from the following global regions: Western and Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America. Continue reading for the full list of articles and accompanying commentaries