Patients' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Several sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators are available in the US for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). Given that these S1PR modulators have similar efficacy and safety, patients may consider the clinical management characteristics of the S1PR modulators when deciding among treatments. However, none of the S1PR modulators is clearly superior in every aspect of clinical management, and for some treatments, clinical management varies based on a patient's comorbid health conditions (e.g., heart conditions [HC]). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine which S1PR modulator patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) would prefer based on clinical management considerations, and to estimate how different clinical management considerations might drive these preferences. Preferences were explored separately for patients with and without comorbid HC. METHODS: A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted on S1PR modulators approved to treat RMS: fingolimod, ozanimod, siponimod, and ponesimod. Clinical management preferences of patients with RRMS were elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which participants repeatedly chose between hypothetical S1PR modulator profiles based on their clinical management attributes. Attributes included first-dose observations, genotyping, liver function tests, eye examinations, drug-drug interactions, interactions with antidepressants, interactions with foods high in tyramine, and immune system recovery time. Preferences were estimated separately for patients with HC and without HC (noHC). Marginal utilities were calculated from the DCE data for each attribute and level using a mixed logit model. In the multicriteria decision analysis, partial value scores were created by applying the marginal utilities for each attribute and level to the real-world profiles of S1PR modulators. Partial value scores were summed to determine an overall clinical management value score for each S1PR modulator. RESULTS: Four hundred patients with RRMS completed the DCE. Ponesimod had the highest overall value score for patients both without (n = 341) and with (n = 59) HC (noHC: 5.1; HC: 4.0), followed by siponimod (noHC: 4.9; HC: 3.3), fingolimod (noHC: 3.4; HC: 2.8), and ozanimod (noHC: 0.9; HC: 0.8). Overall, immune system recovery time contributed the highest partial value scores (noHC: up to 1.9 points; HC: up to 1.2 points), followed by the number of drug-drug interactions (noHC: up to 1.2 points; HC: up to 1.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: When considering the clinical management of S1PR modulators, the average patient with RRMS is expected to choose a treatment with shorter immune system recovery time and fewer interactions with other drugs. Patients both with and without heart conditions are likely to prefer the clinical management profile of ponesimod over those of siponimod, fingolimod, and ozanimod. This information can help inform recommendations for treating RRMS and facilitate shared decision making between patients and their doctors.

Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture.

BACKGROUND: Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients' preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared. RESULTS: Participants (N = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios. CONCLUSION: Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.

Obesity in Cystic fibrosis: prevalence, trends and associated factors data from the US cystic fibrosis foundation patient registry.

Strong emphasis has been placed historically on increasing weight and improving nutritional status in cystic fibrosis patients. Due to correlation between nutritional indices (e.g. BMI) and lung function, CF Nutrition Guidelines have recommended BMI percentile goals at the 50th percentile or higher. Trends in increasing BMI across CF programs suggest significantly increasing proportions of overweight and obese status in recent years. We identify that between 2000 and 2019 there has been a relative decrease in underweight status by ∼40%, simultaneously with a > 300% increase in overweight status, and >400% increase in obesity. Patient specific factors associated with higher prevalence of obesity included age ≥46, living in a zip code where the median income was < $20,000, having at least one allele with a class IV or V mutation, a ppFEV1 >90 prescribed ivacaftor, and not prescribed pancreatic enzymes. Program specific factors were not identified.

Bone mineral density screening by DXA for people with cystic fibrosis: A registry analysis of patient and program factors influencing rates of screening.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend screening for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) related bone disease (CFBD) using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for all people ≥ 18 years of age and select people ≥ 8 years of age. However, adherence to these guidelines is variable. This study aims to evaluate screening practices among adult programs in the US and identify patient and program-based characteristics which may influence screening. METHODS: The CF Foundation Patient Registry (CFFPR) was used to identify all people over the age of 18 who were seen at adult CF programs and received screening for CFBD using DXA at least once between 2014 and 2018. Associations with patient and program level characteristics were assessed using the Chi Square test. Patient level variables were also examined using standardized difference to assess for meaningful clinical differences in rates of screening. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, a total of 15,134 people over the age of 18 were identified in the CFFPR. Of these people, 9,023 (60%) received a DXA during the time period. The median rate of screening by program was 66% and programs in the highest quartile of screening obtained DXAs on >76% of their population. At the program level, larger size and increased adherence to other guideline practices such as OGTT screening and 4 visits, 4 cultures in a year correlated with higher rates of screening for CFBD. At the patient-level, people with lower lung function (FEV1 <90%) and those with CF related diabetes were more likely to be screened. People without health insurance were less likely to receive recommended screening. CONCLUSION: Screening practices for CFBD vary widely across adult programs in the US despite recommendations to screen all people over the age of 18. Factors identified in this analysis may be used to identify those people at highest risk of missing appropriate screening. CFBD has significant implications for our patients and therefore routine screening should be emphasized as part of standard care moving forward.