IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i4d10.1007_s40273-018-0614-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment Preferences in Germany Differ Among Apheresis Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia

Author

Listed:
  • Axel C. Mühlbacher

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg
    Gesellschaft für empirische Beratung GmbH (GEB))

  • Andrew Sadler

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg
    Gesellschaft für empirische Beratung GmbH (GEB))

  • Franz-Werner Dippel

    (Sanofi Deutschland GmbH, Evidenzbasierte Medizin/HEOR)

  • Christin Juhnke

    (Hochschule Neubrandenburg
    Gesellschaft für empirische Beratung GmbH (GEB))

Abstract

Background Severe hypercholesterolemia is a major risk factor of death in patients with coronary heart disease. New adjunctive drug therapies (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors) have gained approval in Europe and the USA. Objective In this empirical study, we documented preferences regarding adjuvant drug therapy in apheresis-treated patients with severe familial hypercholesterolemia. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search to identify patient-relevant outcomes in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia currently undergoing apheresis. Data were used to generate a semi-structured qualitative interview that enabled seven patient-relevant characteristics with three levels each to be identified. For the discrete choice experiment, an experimental design (7 × 3) was generated using NGene Software that consisted of 96 choices divided into eight blocks. The survey was conducted between November 2015 and April 2016 using computer-assisted personal interviews. Results The survey was completed by 348 patients (64.9% male). The random parameter logit estimation showed predominance for the attribute ‘reduction of LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) level’. ‘Risk of myopathy’ and ‘frequency of apheresis’ dominated next. Within the random parameter logit estimation, all coefficients were significant (P ≤ 0.01). The latent class analysis identified three patient groups. The first group (126 patients) found ‘reduction of LDL-C level in blood’ to be most important. This group focused solely on this treatment outcome independently of apheresis frequency or additional injections. The second group (106 patients) focused on three attributes: ‘frequency of apheresis’, ‘risk of myopathy’, and ‘reduction of LDL-C level in blood’. Respondents clearly considered a high frequency of apheresis to have a negative impact. The third group (116 patients) demonstrated the highest preference for apheresis. These patients have adjusted to apheresis for > 10 years. Conclusion Regarding patient preference, clinical efficacy seems to dominate. Hence, ‘reduction of LDC-C in blood’ was ranked highest above patient-relevant modes of administration and adverse effects. In the patient groups identified, reduction of apheresis was important for only a subsegment (30%) of patients. Another 30% wanted effective LDL-C reduction by whatever means necessary. Most strikingly, another 30% preferred higher frequencies of apheresis.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Franz-Werner Dippel & Christin Juhnke, 2018. "Treatment Preferences in Germany Differ Among Apheresis Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 477-493, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0614-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0614-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0614-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0614-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ford, Sarah & Schofield, Theo & Hope, Tony, 2003. "What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation?: A qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 589-602, February.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    3. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    4. David Cutler & Jonathan Skinner & Ariel Dora Stern & David Wennberg, 2013. "Physician Beliefs and Patient Preferences: A New Look at Regional Variation in Health Care Spending," NBER Working Papers 19320, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Speedling, Edward J. & Rose, David N., 1985. "Building an effective doctor-patient relationship: From patient satisfaction to patient participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 115-120, January.
    6. Axel Mühlbacher & Christin Juhnke, 2013. "Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 163-180, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. José Grisolía & Kenneth Willis, 2012. "A latent class model of theatre demand," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(2), pages 113-139, May.
    2. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    3. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    4. Ardeshiri, Ali & Rashidi, Taha Hossein, 2020. "Willingness to pay for fast charging station for electric vehicles with limited market penetration making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. S. Van Cranenburgh & S. Wang & A. Vij & F. Pereira & J. Walker, 2021. "Choice modelling in the age of machine learning -- discussion paper," Papers 2101.11948, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2021.
    6. Siliang Luan & Qingfang Yang & Zhongtai Jiang & Huxing Zhou & Fanyun Meng, 2022. "Analyzing Commute Mode Choice Using the LCNL Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.
    7. Seong Ok Lyu, 2021. "Applying discrete choice models to understand sport tourists’ heterogeneous preferences for Winter Olympic travel products," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(3), pages 482-499, May.
    8. Yi Qian & Jorge Arellano & A. Brett Hauber & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Guy Hechmati & Francesca Gatta & Stacey Harrelson & Cynthia Campbell-Baird, 2016. "Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 323-333, August.
    9. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    10. Eldeeb, Gamal & Mohamed, Moataz, 2020. "Quantifying preference heterogeneity in transit service desired quality using a latent class choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 119-133.
    11. Zhou, Heng & Norman, Richard & Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Hughes, Brett & Kelobonye, Keone & Nikolova, Gabi & Falkmer, Torbjorn, 2020. "Analysing travel mode and airline choice using latent class modelling: A case study in Western Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 187-205.
    12. Espino, Raquel & Román, Concepción, 2020. "Valuation of transfer for bus users: The case of Gran Canaria," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 131-144.
    13. Axsen, Jonn & Bailey, Joseph & Castro, Marisol Andrea, 2015. "Preference and lifestyle heterogeneity among potential plug-in electric vehicle buyers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 190-201.
    14. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    15. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    17. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    18. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    19. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0614-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.