IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient preferences for maintenance therapy in Crohn’s disease: A discrete-choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Glen S Hazlewood
  • Gyanendra Pokharel
  • Robert Deardon
  • Deborah A Marshall
  • Claire Bombardier
  • George Tomlinson
  • Christopher Ma
  • Cynthia H Seow
  • Remo Panaccione
  • Gilaad G Kaplan

Abstract

Objective: To quantify patient preferences for maintenance therapy of Crohn’s disease and understand the impact on treatment selection. Methods: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment in patients with Crohn’s disease (n = 155) to measure the importance of attributes relevant to choosing between different medical therapies for maintenance of Crohn’s disease. The attributes included efficacy and withdrawals due to adverse events, as well as dosing and other rare risks of treatment. From the discrete-choice experiment we estimated the part-worth (importance) of each attribute level, and explored preference heterogeneity through latent class analysis. We then used the part-worths to apply weights across each outcome from a prior network meta-analysis to estimate patients’ preferred treatment in pairwise comparisons and for the overall group of treatments. Results: The discrete-choice experiment revealed that maintaining remission was the most important attribute. Patients would accept a rare risk of infection or cancer for a 14% absolute increased chance of remission. Latent class analysis demonstrated that 45% of the cohort was risk averse, either to adverse events or requiring a course of prednisone. When these preferences were used in modelling studies to compare pairs of treatments, there was a ≥ 78% probability that all biologic treatments were preferred to azathioprine and methotrexate, based on the balance of benefits and harms. When comparing all treatments, adalimumab was preferred by 53% of patients, who were motivated by efficacy, and vedolizumab was preferred by 30% who were driven by the preference to avoid risks. However, amongst biologic treatment options, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the preferred treatment at the individual patient level. Conclusion: Patients with Crohn’s disease from our population were, on average, focused on the benefits of treatment, supporting intensive treatment approaches aimed at maintaining remission. Important preference heterogeneity was identified, however, highlighting the importance of shared decision making when selecting treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Glen S Hazlewood & Gyanendra Pokharel & Robert Deardon & Deborah A Marshall & Claire Bombardier & George Tomlinson & Christopher Ma & Cynthia H Seow & Remo Panaccione & Gilaad G Kaplan, 2020. "Patient preferences for maintenance therapy in Crohn’s disease: A discrete-choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227635
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227635
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227635&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227635?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0227635. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.