RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: To identify drivers of preference for growth hormone deficiency (GHD) treatment in French children, and their caregivers, and to quantify the relative importance of different aspects of treatment modalities using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Attributes characterizing GHD treatment modalities were identified through a literature review, qualitative interviews and focus groups with children, adolescents, and caregivers. A DCE questionnaire of 12 choice tasks was administered online to four groups of participants: autonomous adolescents (12 to 18 years), non-autonomous adolescent / caregiver dyads, caregivers of non-autonomous children (3 to 11 years) and autonomous children / caregiver dyads. The survey was pilot tested. A multinomial logit model with random effects was used to estimate preference weights for all attribute levels. RESULTS: Frequency of administration, injection pain, dose setting, type of device, storage and device reusability were selected as DCE attributes following the qualitative research phase and a pilot study. A total of 105 patients were represented in the DCE survey. Frequency of administration and injection pain were the attributes with the greatest influence on respondents' preferences and had similar importance. Weekly administration was significantly preferred over daily administration by all groups of participants. Respondents' choices were also significantly influenced by the type of device, dose setting and device reusability. CONCLUSION: Children with GHD and their caregivers prefer a less frequent injection schedule and lower injection pain. Both aspects of treatment modalities are important to consider in treatment decisions to alleviate the daily burden for GHD patients and their families and potentially enhance treatment adherence.
RESUMEN
Objective: Efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients. Methods: A Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: FGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.