Real-world treatment preferences among health care providers in the United States in selecting disease modifying therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis: a discrete choice experiment.

AIMS: Health care providers (HCPs) treating multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinical practice have numerous disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) to consider when evaluating treatment options. This study assessed the treatment preferences of HCPs in the United States, both direct (explicit) and derived (explicit and implicit), when selecting MS DMTs based on clinical and logistical treatment attributes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 45-minute web-enabled questionnaire was administered to HCPs who manage patients with MS to assess the importance of treatment attributes. HCPs were recruited through an online panel. This study examined treatment attributes relevant to treatment decisions in MS, with a focus on the burden to HCPs and their staff, as well as HCP attitudes toward various aspects of MS care such as diagnosis, treatment prioritization, and ease of initiating or switching DMTs. The study also employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess direct and derived treatment preferences. RESULTS: The study recruited 145 HCPs. Direct assessments (a score of greater than 7.0 was considered important) suggested that safety (mean importance rating = 7.8/9) and relative risk reduction in relapses (7.6/9) and disability progression (7.5/9) were most important when selecting DMTs. In contrast, derived importance from the DCE (higher points corresponding to greater importance) suggested that logistical attributes such as dose frequency (mean relative attribute importance = 17.5%), dose titration (10.3%), formulation (9.4%), and volume of calls (9.1%) were important considerations, along with efficacy (16.5%), safety (9.8%), and gastrointestinal tolerability (9.4%). LIMITATIONS: This study may have been subject to selection bias due to the application of eligibility criteria, the convenient sampling recruitment methodology, and recruitment of HCPs with internet access. CONCLUSION: In the direct assessment, clinical attributes were chosen as the most important treatment attributes by HCPs. However, in the DCE, derived treatment decisions rated logistical attributes as also being as important in treatment choice.

In this study, researchers aimed to understand what multiple sclerosis (MS) neurologists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants think is most important when choosing medicines for their patients. They surveyed 145 health care providers (HCPs) in the United States for this study. The HCPs reported that safety and reducing the risk of relapses and disability were most important when selecting medicines. Additionally, the researchers used a method called a discrete choice experiment to determine the relative importance of medication characteristics to HCPs. They found that additional factors, such as how often the medicine needs to be taken, how it is given, and how easy it is to use, were also very important. The study may not represent the opinions of all HCPs due to the number of participants and participation criteria.

Economically Efficient Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Prioritization Improves Health Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The total cost of treating the 3 million Americans chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) represents a substantial affordability challenge requiring treatment prioritization. This study compares the health and economic outcomes of alternative treatment prioritization schedules. METHODS: We developed a multiyear HCV treatment budget allocation model to evaluate the tradeoffs of 7 prioritization strategies. We used optimization to identify the priority schedule that maximizes population net monetary benefit (NMB). We compared prioritization schedules in terms of the number of individuals treated, the number of individuals who progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD), and population total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We applied the model to the population of treatment-naive patients with a total annual HCV treatment budget of US$8.6 billion. RESULTS: First-come, first-served (FCFS) treats the fewest people with advanced fibrosis, prevents the fewest cases of ESLD, and gains the fewest QALYs. A schedule developed from optimizing population NMB prioritizes treatment in the first year to patients with moderate to severe fibrosis who are younger than 65 years, followed by older individuals with moderate to severe fibrosis. While this strategy yields the greatest population QALYs, prioritization by disease severity alone prevents more cases of ESLD. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the differences between prioritization schedules are greater when the budget is smaller. A 10% annual treatment price reduction enabled treatment 1 year sooner to several patient subgroups, specifically older patients and those with less severe liver fibrosis. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a sufficient budget to treat all patients, explicit prioritization targeting younger people with more severe disease first provides the greatest health benefits. We provide our spreadsheet model so that decision makers can compare health tradeoffs of different budget levels and various prioritization strategies with inputs tailored to their population.