Patient preferences pertaining to treatment options for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient acceptability of benefit-risk trade-offs in selecting treatment options for drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, including open brain surgery, laser ablation (laser interstitial thermal therapy [LITT]), and continued medications. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey was developed, consisting of 20 versions that were randomly assigned to respondents. Each version had 8 sets of constructed treatment alternatives, representing open brain surgery, LITT, or continued medical management. For each set, respondents indicated the treatment alternative they would choose first. Treatment alternatives were characterized by varying levels of chance of seizure freedom for at least 2 years (20-70%), risk of 30-day mortality (0-10%), and risk of neurological deficits (0-40%). Respondents' choices were analyzed using random-parameters logit models to quantify acceptable benefit-risk trade-offs. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated using latent-class analysis. RESULTS: The survey was administered to 2 cohorts of adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a Duke cohort identified using diagnostic codes (n = 106) and a web-recruited panel with a self-reported physician diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy (n = 300). Based on mean preference weights, respondents who indicated a willingness to consider surgical intervention would accept a reduction in chance of seizure freedom from 70% to a minimum-acceptable benefit (MAB) of 23% if they could undergo LITT rather than open brain surgery. For a reduction in 30-day mortality from 1% to 0%, MAB was 52%. For a reduction in risk of long-term deficits from 10% to 0%, MAB was 39%. Latent-class analysis revealed additional choice patterns identifying respondent groups that more strongly favored continuing medications or undergoing surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients who are receptive to surgery would accept significantly lower treatment effectiveness to undergo a minimally invasive procedure relative to open brain surgery. They also were willing to accept lower treatment benefit to reduce risks of mortality or neurological deficits.

Who Would Pay Higher Taxes for Better Mental Health? Results of a Large-Sample National Choice Experiment.

Policy Points  Public funding for mental health programs must compete with other funding priorities in limited state budgets.  Valuing state-funded mental health programs in a policy-relevant context requires consideration of how much benefit from other programs the public is willing to forgo to increase mental health program benefits and how much the public is willing to be taxed for such program benefits.  Taxpayer resistance to increased taxes to pay for publicly funded mental health programs and perceived benefits of such programs vary with state population size.  In all states, taxpayers seem to support increased public funding for mental health programs such as state Medicaid services, suggesting such programs are underfunded from the perspective of the average taxpayer. CONTEXT: The direct and indirect impacts of serious mental illness (SMI) on health care systems and communities represents a significant burden. However, the value that community members place on alleviating this burden is not known, and SMI treatment must compete with a long list of other publicly funded priorities. This study defines the value of public mental health interventions as what the public would accept, either in the form of higher taxes or in reductions in nonhealth programs, in return for increases in the number of mental health program beneficiaries. METHODS: We developed and fielded a best-practice discrete-choice experiment survey to quantify respondents' willingness to be taxed for increased spending among several competing programs, including a program for treating severe mental health conditions. A realistic decision frame was used to elicit respondents' willingness to support expanded state budgets for mental health programs if that expansion required either cuts in the competing publicly financed programs or tax increases. The survey was administered to a general population national sample of 10,000 respondents. FINDINGS: Nearly half the respondents in our sample either chose "no budget increase" for all budget scenarios or had preferences that were too disordered to estimate trade-off values. Including zero values for those respondents, we found that the mean (median) amount that all respondents were willing to be taxed annually for public mental health programs ranged between $156 ($99) per year for large-population states and $343 ($181) per year for small-population states. Respondents would accept reductions of between 1.6 and 3.4 beneficiaries in other programs in return for 1 additional mental health program beneficiary. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with findings that a substantial portion of the US public is unwilling to pay higher taxes. Nevertheless, even including the substantial number of respondents who opposed any tax increase, the willingness of both the mean and median respondent to be taxed for mental health program expansions implies that programs providing mental health services such as state Medicaid are underfunded.

The preferences of women with ovarian cancer for oral versus intravenous recurrence regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding features of available anti-cancer regimens for platinum-resistant, biomarker-positive disease, with an emphasis on oral PARP inhibitor and standard intravenous (IV) chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A discrete-choice-experiment preferences survey was designed, tested, and administered to women with ovarian cancer, with 11 pairs of treatment profiles defined using seven attributes (levels/ranges): regimen (oral daily, IV weekly, IV monthly); probability of progression-free (PFS) at 6 months (40%-60%); probability of PFS at 2 years (10%-20%); nausea (none, moderate); peripheral neuropathy (none, mild, moderate); memory problems (none, mild); and total out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $10,000). RESULTS: Of 123 participants, 38% had experienced recurrence, 25% were currently receiving chemotherapy, and 18% were currently taking a PARP inhibitor. Given attributes and levels, the relative importance weights (sum 100) were: 2-year PFS, 28; cost, 27; 6-month PFS, 19; neuropathy,14; memory problems, nausea, and regimen, all ≤5. To accept moderate neuropathy, participants required a 49% (versus 40%) chance of PFS at 6 months or 14% (versus 10%) chance at 2 years. Given a 3-way choice where PFS and cost were equal, 49% preferred a monthly IV regimen causing mild memory problems, 47% preferred an oral regimen causing moderate nausea, and 4% preferred a weekly IV regimen causing mild memory and mild neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings challenge the assumption that oral anti-cancer therapies are universally preferred by patients and demonstrate that there is no "one size fits all" regimen that is preferable to women with ovarian cancer when considering recurrence treatment regimens.

Quantifying Value of Hope.

BACKGROUND: 'Hope' is a construct in patient-centered value frameworks, but few studies have attempted to measure the value of hope separately from treatment-related gains in quality of life and survival to support its application in economic evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To generate quantitative information on the "value of hope". METHODS: We designed a discrete-choice experiment in which treatment alternatives varied the probability of achieving 10-year survival, expected survival as the weighted sum of short-term and long-term survival, health status, and out-of-pocket cost. Two-hundred patients with cancer or history of cancer recruited by Cancer Support Community each completed 10 choice questions. We used mixed-logit and latent-class models to analyze the choice data. RESULTS: Relative to fixed survival periods of two, three or five years with 0% chance of 10-year survival, participants positively valued treatments with 5% and 10% chances of 10-year survival. However, participants negatively valued a 20% chance of 10-year survival that required an offsetting 80% chance of shorter survival. This finding was particularly strong when expected survival was two years. Compared to a 0% chance, dollar-equivalent values of 5% and 10% chances of long-term survival were $5,975 and $12,421, respectively, independent of health status or expected survival. The corresponding value for 20% versus 0% chance of long-term survival was negative. Latent-class analysis revealed 4 groups with distinct preference patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings affirm positive value for hope independent of expected survival and health status. However, this finding does not universally hold in all situations nor across all groups.

Incomplete information and irrelevant attributes in stated-preference values for health interventions.

Violations of the assumptions of complete information [CI] and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) in discrete-choice experiment (DCE) data imply sensitivity of preference estimates to the decision context and the alternatives evaluated. There is a paucity of evidence on how these two assumptions affect health-preference results and whether the usual specifications of random-parameters logit models are sufficient to address these violations. We assessed the appropriateness of these assumptions in a DCE valuating interventions to prevent long-term health problems that could be identified through whole genome sequencing. A DCE survey was administered to members of a nationally representative consumer panel to elicit their preferences for options to reduce the risk of health problems. The treatment options presented (surgery, medication, and watchful waiting) and the context for the decisions elicited (severity and likelihood of the health problem) were varied experimentally to evaluate the sensitivity of preference results to such changes. We find evidence of IIA violations as the options presented to prevent health changed. Our results also are consistent with the expectation that additional substitutes decrease the monetized value of alternatives. We also find some evidence that the decision context can moderate such effects, which constitutes a new finding.

Variation Among Patients With Crohn's Disease in Benefit vs Risk Preferences and Remission Time Equivalents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) must make decisions about their treatment. We aimed to quantify patients' preferences for different treatment outcomes and adverse events. We also evaluated the effects of latent class heterogeneity on these preferences. METHODS: An online stated-preference survey was completed by 812 individuals with CD in the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation Partners cohort (IBD Partners). Patients were given information on symptoms and severity of active disease; duration of therapy with corticosteroids; and risks of serious infection, cancer and surgery. Patients were asked to assume that their treatment was not working and to choose an alternative therapy. The primary outcome was remission-time equivalents (RTE) of a given duration of symptom severity or treatment-related risk. Latent class choice models identified groups of patients with dominant treatment-outcome preferences and associated patient characteristics with these groups. RESULTS: Latent class analysis demonstrated 3 distinct groups of survey responders whose choices were strongly influenced by avoidance of active symptoms (61%), avoidance of corticosteroid use (25%), or avoidance of risks of cancer, infection or surgery (14%) when choosing a therapy. Class membership was correlated with age, sex, mean short CD activity index score and corticosteroid avoidance. RTEs in each latent class differed significantly from the mean RTEs for the overall sample, although the symptom-avoidant class most closely approximated the overall sample. CONCLUSIONS: In an online survey of patients with CD, we found substantial heterogeneity in preference for medication efficacy and risk of harm. Physicians and regulators should therefore not assume that all patients have mean-value preferences-this could result in significant differences in health-technology assessment models.

Patient preferences for maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To measure preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding risks, side effects, costs and benefits afforded by maintenance therapy (MT) with a poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment elicited preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding 6 attributes (levels in parentheses) relevant to decisions for MT versus treatment break: (1) overall survival (OS; 36, 38, 42 months); (2) progression-free survival (PFS; 15, 17, 21 months); (3) nausea (none, mild, moderate); (4) fatigue (none, mild, moderate); (5) probability of death from myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia (MDS/AML; 0% to 10%); (6) monthly out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $1000). Participants chose between 2 variable MT scenarios and a static scenario representing treatment break, with multiple iterations. Random-parameters logit regression was applied to model choices as a function of attribute levels. RESULTS: 95 eligible participants completed the survey; mean age was 62, 48% had recurrence, and 17% were ever-PARP inhibitor users. Participants valued OS (average importance weight 24.5 out of 100) and monthly costs (24.6) most highly, followed by risk of death from MDS/AML (17.9), nausea (14.7), PFS (10.5) and fatigue (7.8). Participants would accept 5% risk of MDS/AML if treatment provided 2.2 months additional OS or 4.8 months PFS. Participants would require gains of 2.6 months PFS to accept mild treatment-related fatigue and 4.4 months to accept mild nausea. CONCLUSIONS: When considering MT, women with ovarian cancer are most motivated by gains in OS. Women expect at least 3-4 months of PFS benefit to bear mild side effects of treatment.

Willingness to Accept Trade-Offs Among COVID-19 Cases, Social-Distancing Restrictions, and Economic Impact: A Nationwide US Study.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a discrete-choice experiment to quantify Americans' acceptance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risks for earlier lifting of social-distancing restrictions and diminishing the pandemic's economic impact. METHODS: We designed a discrete-choice experiment to administer 10 choice questions to each respondent representing experimentally controlled pairs of scenarios defined by when nonessential businesses could reopen (May, July, or October 2020), cumulative percentage of Americans contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through 2020 (2% to 20%), time for economic recovery (2 to 5 years), and the percentage of US households falling below the poverty threshold (16% to 25%). Respondents were recruited by SurveyHealthcareGlobus. RESULTS: A total of 5953 adults across all 50 states completed the survey between May 8 and 20, 2020. Latent-class analysis supported a 4-class model. The largest class (36%) represented COVID-19 risk-minimizers, reluctant to accept any increases in COVID-19 risks. About 26% were waiters, strongly preferring to delay reopening nonessential businesses, independent of COVID-19 risk levels. Another 25% represented recovery-supporters, primarily concerned about time required for economic recovery. This group would accept COVID-19 risks as high as 16% (95% CI: 13%-19%) to shorten economic recovery from 3 to 2 years. The final openers class prioritized lifting social distancing restrictions, accepting of COVID-19 risks greater than 20% to open in May rather than July or October. Political affiliation, race, household income, and employment status were all associated with class membership (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Americans have diverse preferences pertaining to social-distancing restrictions, infection risks, and economic outcomes. These findings can assist elected and public-health officials in making difficult policy decisions related to the pandemic.

Criteria and Process for Initiating and Developing an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report.

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)'s "Good Practices Task Force" reports are highly cited, multistakeholder perspective expert guidance reports that reflect international standards for health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) and their use in healthcare decision making. In this report, we discuss the criteria, development, and evaluation/consensus review and approval process for initiating a task force. The rationale for a task force must include a justification, including why this good practice guidance is important and its potential impact on the scientific community. The criteria include: (1) necessity (why is this task force required?); (2) a methodology-oriented focus (focus on research methods, approaches, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination); (3) relevance (to ISPOR's mission and its members); (4) durability over time; (5) broad applicability; and 6) an evidence-based approach. In addition, the proposal must be a priority specifically for ISPOR. These reports are valuable to researchers, academics, students, health technology assessors, medical technology developers and service providers, those working in other commercial entities, regulators, and payers. These stakeholder perspectives are represented in task force membership to ensure the report's overall usefulness and relevance to the global ISPOR membership. We hope that this discussion will bring transparency to the process of initiating, approving, and producing these task force reports and encourage participation from a diverse range of experts within and outside ISPOR.

The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a tool for testing internal validity of discrete choice experiment (DCE) data, deploy the program, and collect summary test results from a sample of active health researchers to demonstrate the practical utility of the tool in a wide range of health applications. METHODS: A previously developed Gauss program had been in use for testing internal validity. The program was translated to MATLAB and adapted, compiled, and deployed. Sixty-seven authors who had coauthored one or more published DCE studies between 2013 and 2016 were contacted by email; provided access to the tool, instructions, and an example data file; and invited to submit test summaries for tabulation. RESULTS: Twenty-one researchers from 10 countries contributed test results from a total of 55 DCE data sets. Fifty-one studies included at least two out of a possible six tests. Attribute dominance was the most common test, and stability had the highest failure incidence. Only three summaries included a transitivity test, and no failures were detected. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to evaluate multiple internal validity checks for most data sets even when the experimental design did not explicitly include tests. Nevertheless, internal validity is rarely reported. Free availability of the tool for testing data quality could improve both reporting and more careful design of DCE studies to help validate and interpret stated preference data.

Comparing the Noncomparable: The Need for Equivalence Measures That Make Sense in Health-Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) has been resistant to concerns about validity and reliability. Utility-theoretic outcome equivalents are widely used in other areas of applied economics. Equivalence values can be derived for time, money, risk, and other metrics. These equivalence measures preserve all available information about individual preferences and are valid measures of individual welfare changes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to derive alternative generalized equivalence measures from first principles and illustrate their application in an empirical comparative-effectiveness example. METHODS: We specify a general-equilibrium model incorporating neoclassical utility functions, health production function, severity-duration preferences, and labor-market tradeoff function. The empirical implementation takes advantage of discrete-choice experiment methods that are widely accepted in other areas of applied economics and increasingly in health economics. We illustrate the practical significance of restrictive QALY assumptions using comparative-effectiveness results based on both QALYs and estimates of welfare-theoretic time-equivalent values for anti-tumor necrosis factor and prolonged corticosteroid treatments for Crohn's disease in three distinct preference classes. RESULTS: The QALY difference between the two treatments is 0.2 months, while time-equivalent values range between 0.5 and 1.3 months for aggregate and class-specific differences. Thus, the QALY-based analysis understates welfare-theoretic values by 60%-85%. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that using disease-specific equivalence values offer a meaningful alternative to QALYs to compare global outcomes across treatments. The equivalence values approach is consistent with principles of welfare economics and offers several features not represented in QALYs, including accounting for preference nonlinearities in disease severity and duration, inclusion of preference-relevant nonclinical healthcare factors, representing preferences of clinically-relevant patient subpopulations, and including utility losses related to risk aversion.

Something Is Better Than Nothing: The Value of Active Intervention in Stated Preferences for Treatments to Delay Onset of Alzheimer's Disease Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to understand respondents' willingness to accept hypothetical treatment-related risks in return for the benefit of additional time with normal memory from potential Alzheimer's disease interception therapies. METHODS: A US web-based discrete-choice survey was administered to respondents ages 60 to 85 years with no Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and no cognitive symptoms. Choice questions required respondents to indicate whether they preferred a constant, no-treatment condition described as 4 years of normal memory followed by 3 years of cognitive impairment and 5 years of dementia or an interception treatment with chosen risks of disabling stroke and death, but with increased duration of normal memory. The study design included internal validity tests to verify data quality. RESULTS: On average, respondents were willing to accept a 5% to 13% risk of stroke or death in the first year for treatments that could provide 1 or more additional years with normal memory. Nevertheless, 30% of respondents failed a simple internal-validity test question where the treatment alternative offered no improvement in disease progression but had significant side effects. These respondents also were more likely to choose active treatment in the subsequent series of choice questions. This unexpected finding is consistent with hopeful attitudes of patients with debilitating and potentially fatal conditions. CONCLUSION: Pro-treatment attitudes are clinically relevant and can affect the analysis and interpretation of stated-preference data. Internal-validity tests generally are underutilized in preference research. This study demonstrated how analysis of apparent validity failures can yield important insights about patient preferences.

Corrigendum: What are people willing to pay for whole-genome sequencing information, and who decides what they receive?

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.61.

Estimating Preferences for Complex Health Technologies: Lessons Learned and Implications for Personalized Medicine.

We examine key study design challenges of using stated-preference methods to estimate the value of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a specific example of genomic testing. Assessing the value of WGS is complex because WGS provides multiple findings, some of which can be incidental in nature and unrelated to the specific health concerns that motivated the test. In addition, WGS results can include actionable findings (variants considered to be clinically useful and can be acted on), findings for which evidence for best clinical action is not available (variants considered clinically valid but do not meet as high of a standard for clinical usefulness), and findings of unknown significance. We consider three key challenges encountered in designing our national study on the value of WGS-layers of uncertainty, potential downstream consequences with endogenous aspects, and both positive and negative utility associated with testing information-and potential solutions as strategies to address these challenges. We conceptualized the decision to acquire WGS information as a series of sequential choices that are resolved separately. To determine the value of WGS information at the initial decision to undergo WGS, we used contingent valuation questions, and to elicit respondent preferences for reducing risks of health problems and the consequences of taking the steps to reduce these risks, we used a discrete-choice experiment. We conclude by considering the implications for evaluating the value of other complex health technologies that involve multiple forms of uncertainty.

Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Benefit Descriptions on Diabetes Patients' Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences.

BACKGROUND: As more studies report on patient preferences for diabetes treatment, identifying diabetes outcomes other than glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to describe effectiveness is warranted to understand patient-relevant, benefit-risk tradeoffs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate how preferences differ when effectiveness (glycemic control) is presented as long-term sequela (LTS) risk mitigation rather than an asymptomatic technical marker (HbA1c). METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes and using insulin (n = 3160) were randomly assigned to four self-administered, discrete-choice experiments that differed by their presentation of effectiveness. Epidemiologic reviews were conducted to ensure a close approximation of LTS risk relative to HbA1c levels. The relative importance of treatment benefit-risk characteristics and maximum acceptable risk tradeoffs was estimated using an error-component logit model. Log-likelihood ratio tests were used to compare parameter vectors. RESULTS: In total, 1031 people responded to the survey. Significantly more severe hypoglycemic events were accepted for a health improvement in terms of LTS mitigation versus HbA1c improvement (0.7 events per year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-1.0 vs. 0.2 events per year 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.5) and avoidance of treatment-related heart attack risk (1.4 severe hypoglycemic events per year; 95% CI: 0.8-1.9 vs. 1 event per year; 95% CI: 0.6-1.3). This finding is supported by a log-likelihood test that rejected at the 0.05 level that respondent preference structures are similar across the different experimental arms of the discrete-choice experiment. CONCLUSION: We found evidence that benefit descriptions influence elicited preferences for the benefit-risk characteristics of injectable diabetes treatment. These findings argue for using carefully defined effectiveness measures to accurately take account of the patient perspective in benefit-risk assessments.

What are people willing to pay for whole-genome sequencing information, and who decides what they receive?

PURPOSE: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can be used as a powerful diagnostic tool as well as for screening, but it may lead to anxiety, unnecessary testing, and overtreatment. Current guidelines suggest reporting clinically actionable secondary findings when diagnostic testing is performed. We examined preferences for receiving WGS results. METHODS: A US nationally representative survey (n = 410 adults) was used to rank preferences for who decides (an expert panel, your doctor, you) which WGS results are reported. We estimated the value of information about variants with varying levels of clinical usefulness by using willingness to pay contingent valuation questions. RESULTS: The results were as follows: 43% preferred to decide themselves what information is included in the WGS report. 38% (95% confidence interval (CI): 33-43%) would not pay for actionable variants, and 3% (95% CI: 1-5%) would pay more than $1,000. 55% (95% CI: 50-60%) would not pay for variants for which medical treatment is currently unclear, and 7% (95% CI: 5-9%) would pay more than $400. CONCLUSION: Most people prefer to decide what WGS results are reported. Despite valuing actionable information more, some respondents perceive that genetic information could negatively impact them. Preference heterogeneity for WGS information should be considered in the development of policies, particularly to integrate patient preferences with personalized medicine and shared decision making.Genet Med 18 12, 1295-1302.

Patient Preferences in Regulatory Benefit-Risk Assessments: A US Perspective.

Demands for greater transparency in US regulatory assessments of benefits and risks, together with growing interest in engaging patients in Food and Drug Administration regulatory decision making, have resulted in several recent regulatory developments. Although Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) have established patient-engagement initiatives, CDRH has proposed guidelines for considering quantitative data on patients' benefit-risk perspectives, while CDER has focused on a more qualitative approach. We summarize two significant studies that were developed in collaboration and consultation with CDER and CDRH. CDER encouraged a patient advocacy group to propose draft guidance on engaging patient and caregiver stakeholders in regulatory decision making for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. CDRH sponsored a discrete-choice experiment case study to quantify obese respondents' perspectives on "meaningful benefits." CDRH and CDER issued draft guidance in May and June 2015, respectively, on including patient-preference data in regulatory submissions. Both organizations face challenges. CDER is working on integrating qualitative data into existing evidence-based review processes and is exploring options for therapeutic areas not included on a priority list. CDRH has adopted an approach that requires patient-preference data to satisfy standards of valid scientific evidence. Although that strategy could facilitate integrating patient perspectives directly with clinical data on benefits and harms, generating such data requires building capacity.

Do You Want to Hear the Bad News? The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Alzheimer's Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains difficult. Lack of diagnostic certainty or possible distress related to a positive result from diagnostic testing could limit the application of new testing technologies. The objective of this paper is to quantify respondents' preferences for obtaining AD diagnostic tests and to estimate the perceived value of AD test information. METHODS: Discrete-choice experiment and contingent-valuation questions were administered to respondents in Germany and the United Kingdom. Choice data were analyzed by using random-parameters logit. A probit model characterized respondents who were not willing to take a test. RESULTS: Most respondents indicated a positive value for AD diagnostic test information. Respondents who indicated an interest in testing preferred brain imaging without the use of radioactive markers. German respondents had relatively lower money-equivalent values for test features compared with respondents in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents preferred less invasive diagnostic procedures and tests with higher accuracy and expressed a willingness to pay up to €700 to receive a less invasive test with the highest accuracy.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients' Willingness to Accept Medication Risk to Avoid Future Disease Relapse.

OBJECTIVES: Biomarkers, endoscopy and imaging tests can identify patients at increased risk for early recurrence of symptomatic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients may be unwilling to accept additional medical therapy risks related to therapy escalation to avoid a future disease relapse. We sought to quantify IBD patients' willingness to accept medication risk to avoid future disease relapse. METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among 202 patients with IBD who were offered choices of therapies with varying risks of lymphoma and infection, and varying time to next IBD relapse. Random parameters logit was used to estimate patients' willingness to accept tradeoffs among treatment features in selecting medication therapy to avoid future disease relapse. RESULTS: To avoid a disease relapse over the next 5 years, IBD patients were willing to accept an average of a 28% chance of a serious infection; and an average of 1.8% chance of developing lymphoma. These results did not significantly change when patients were offered 10 years until their next disease relapse, but were lower (11 and 0.7%, respectively) when offered 1.5 years until the next disease relapse. Patients with active disease symptoms were significantly less willing to accept medication risk for time in remission. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients are willing to accept high levels of lymphoma and serious infection risk to maintain disease remission. These preferences are congruent with the treatment paradigms emphasizing mucosal healing and early aggressive therapy and highlight patients' strong preferences for therapies resulting in durable remission of at least 5 years.

Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The value of the information that genetic testing services provide can be questioned for insurance-based health systems. The results of genetic tests oftentimes may not lead to well-defined clinical interventions; however, Lynch syndrome, a genetic mutation for which carriers are at an increased risk for colorectal cancer, can be identified through genetic testing, and meaningful health interventions are available via increased colonoscopic surveillance. Valuations of test information for such conditions ought to account for the full impact of interventions and contingent outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a discrete-choice experiment to elicit individuals' preferences for genetic test information. METHODS: A Web-enabled discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to a representative sample of US residents aged 50 years and older. In addition to specifying expenditures on colonoscopies, respondents were asked to make a series of nine selections between two hypothetical genetic tests or a no-test option under the premise that a relative had Lynch syndrome. The hypothetical genetic tests were defined by the probability of developing colorectal cancer, the probability of a false-negative test result, privacy of the result, and out-of-pocket cost. A model specification identifying necessary interactions was derived from assumptions of risk behavior and the decision context and was estimated using random-parameters logit. RESULTS: A total of 650 respondents were contacted, and 385 completed the survey. The monetary equivalent of test information was approximately $1800. Expenditures on colonoscopies to reduce mortality risks affected valuations. Respondents with lower income or who reported being employed significantly valued genetic tests more. CONCLUSION: Genetic testing may confer benefits through the impact of subsequent interventions on private individuals.