An implantable device to treat multiple sclerosis: A discrete choice experiment on patient preferences in three European countries.

BACKGROUND: Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) take their treatment via pills, injections or infusions. A novel mode of disease-modifying treatment administration, an implantable device, is under development. This study determined MS patient preferences for three modes of first-line treatment administration (implant, pills, injectables), and trade-offs regarding treatment characteristics. METHODS: A survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted among MS patients in the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Respondents had to repeatedly choose between various treatment scenarios with four treatment characteristics: risk of relapse, reduction of disease progression, risk of side effects and mode of administration. Data was analysed using a panel latent class logit model. RESULTS: Based on the preferences of 753 MS patients (response rate 7%: 753/11202), two latent classes were identified (class probability of 74% vs 26%). Persons with relapsing-remitting MS and who administered medication via injections generally preferred any treatment over no treatment. Patients who could walk without an aid were more likely to prefer no treatment. Reducing disease progression was the most important treatment characteristic class 1. Mode of administration was the most important characteristic in class 2. Patients were willing to accept an increase in risk of relapse and disease progression to get their treatment via an implant rather than injections. Predicted uptake was the highest for the implant, followed by pills, injections, and no treatment. CONCLUSION: We found that a drug-delivery implant could be a potential addition to the MS treatment landscape: MS patients are willing to trade-off risk of relapse and disease progression for an implant, and predicted uptake for an implant is relatively high.

Patients', healthcare providers', and insurance company employees' preferences for knee and hip osteoarthritis care: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patients', healthcare providers', and insurance company employees' preferences for knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) care. DESIGN: In a discrete choice experiment, patients with KHOA or a joint replacement, healthcare providers, and insurance company employees were repetitively asked to choose between KHOA care alternatives that differed in six attributes: waiting times, out of pocket costs, travel distance, involved healthcare providers, duration of consultation, and access to specialist equipment. A (panel latent class) conditional logit model was used to determine preference heterogeneity and relative importance of the attributes. RESULTS: Patients (n = 648) and healthcare providers (n = 76) valued low out of pocket costs most, while insurance company employees (n = 150) found a joint consultation by general practitioner (GP) and orthopaedist most important. Patients found the duration of consultation less important than healthcare providers and insurance company employees did. Patients without a joint replacement were likely to prefer healthcare with low out of pocket costs. Patients with a joint replacement and/or low disease-specific quality of life were likely to prefer healthcare from an orthopaedist. Patients who already received healthcare for knee/hip problems were likely to prefer a joint consultation by GP and orthopaedist, and direct access to specialist equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, healthcare providers, and insurance company employees highly prefer a joint consultation by GP and orthopaedist with low out of pocket costs. Within patients, there is substantial preference heterogeneity. These results can be used by policy makers and healthcare providers to choose the most optimal combination of KHOA care aligned to patients' preferences.