Using Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Willingness to Pay for Interferon-Beta Drugs by Multiple Sclerosis Patients Willingness to Pay for Interferon-Beta Drugs in Multiple Sclerosis Patients
Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences,
دوره 14 شماره 4 (2018),
1 October 2018
,
صفحه 71-78
https://doi.org/10.22037/ijps.v14.40628
چکیده
This study explores the effects of Interferon-β characteristics such as country of origin, injection frequency and method, monthly cost, effectiveness, and side effects on multiple-sclerosis patients’ willingness to pay. For this purpose, MS patients with a history of using Interferon-β were studied from the three major Isfahan MS centers. Choice sets were designed with a combination of attributes and levels. The variables in this experiment included interferon-β with different levels assigned to each of its attribute. Patient preferences and willingness to pay were calculated through Discreet Choice Experiment. The statistical population consisted of 358 patients deemed eligible for the study. They responded to the questionnaire and took part in interviews. Results showed that the highest willingness-to-pay value of US$ 223 as determined by MS patients belonged to a change of effectiveness from moderate to high. Side-effects and ease of use ranked next among patient preferences. Country of origin recorded the lowest value of the willingness-to-pay parameter. Evaluation of MS patients' preferences as reflected in their willingness to pay plays an important role in patient’s adherence to treatment to achieve more effective results. Due to the variety of drugs in this category, it is necessary to identify and prioritize those features that are of interest to patients and that increase their utility relative to IFN-β drugs.
- willingness-to-pay
- Interferon-β
- Discreet Choice Experiment
- multiple-sclerosis
- patients
- Conjoint Analysis
ارجاع به مقاله
مراجع
[2] Poulos C, Kinter E, Yang J-C, Bridges JF, Posner J, Reder AT. Patient preferences for injectable treatments for multiple sclerosis in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment. PATIENT. (2016) 9:171-80 .
[3] Arroyo R, Sempere AP, Ruiz-Beato E, Prefasi D, Carreño A, Roset M, et al .Conjoint analysis to understand preferences of patients with multiple sclerosis for disease-modifying therapy attributes in Spain: a cross-sectional observational study. BMJ. Open (2017) 7:e014433 .
[4] de Vries ST, de Vries FM, Dekker T, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, de Zeeuw D, Ranchor AV, et al. The role of patients’ age on their preferences for choosing additional blood pressure-lowering drugs: A discrete choice experiment in patients with diabetes. PLoS. One. (2015) 10:e0139755 .
[5] Brück W, Gold R, Lund BT, Oreja-Guevara C, Prat A, Spencer CM, et al. Therapeutic decisions in multiple sclerosis: moving beyond efficacy. JAMA. Neurol. (2013) 70:1315-24 .
[6] Wicks P, Massagli M, Kulkarni A, Dastani H. Use of an online community to develop patient-reported outcome instruments: the Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Adherence Questionnaire (MS-TAQ). J. Med. Internet Res. (2011) 13 .
[7] Colligan E, Metzler A, Tiryaki E. Shared decision-making in multiple sclerosis: a review. Mult. Scler. J. (2017 :) 1352458516671204 .
[8] Poulos C, Kinter E, Yang J-C, Bridges JF, Posner J, Gleißner E, et al. A discrete-choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injectable multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. (2016):1756285615622736 .
[9] Shingler S, Swinburn P, Ali S, Perard R, Lloyd A. A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis. J. Med .Econ. (2013) 16:1036-42 .
[10] Wicks P, Brandes D, Park J, Liakhovitski D, Koudinova T, Sasane R. Preferred Features of Oral Treatments and Predictors of Non-Adherence: Two Web-Based Choice Experiments in Multiple Sclerosis Patients. Interact J. Med. Res. (2015) 4:e6 .
[11] Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Springer Science & Business Media (2007) .
[12] Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes: Oxford university press (2015) .
[13] Lin P-J, Saret CJ, Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Cohen JT. Assessing the Value of Treatment to Address Various Symptoms Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: Results from a Contingent Valuation Study. Pharmacoecon. (2016) 34:1255- 65 .
[14] ]Utz KS, Hoog J, Wentrup A, Berg S, Lämmer A, Jainsch B, et al. Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. (2014) 7:263-75 .
[15] Wilson L, Loucks A, Bui C, Gipson G, Zhong L, Schwartzburg A, et al. Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices. J Neurol Sci. (2014) 344:80-7.
[16] Iskedjian M, Desjardins O, Piwko C, Bereza B, Jaszewski B, Einarson TR. Willingness to pay for a treatment for pain in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacoecon. (2009) 27:149-58 .
[17] Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health (2011) 14:403-13 .
[18] Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues-Stoke On Trent. (2003) 8:83-110 .
[19] Lloyd A, Nafees B, Barnett AH, Heller S, Ploug UJ, Lammert M, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin. Ther. (2011) 33:1258-67 .
[20] Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer: Cambridge University Press (2005) .
[21] Etemadifar M, Nourian S-M, Akbari M, Abtahi S-H, Nasri P, Fereidan-Esfahani M. The distinctive contrast of multiple sclerosis epidemiology between Persians and Armenian minority community of Isfahan city. Iran. Neurol Sci. (2015) 36:657-8 .
[22] Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy (2003) 2:55-64 .
[23] Stewart KD, Johnston JA ,Matza LS, Curtis SE, Havel HA, Sweetana SA, et al. Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes. Patient Prefer Adherence (2016) 10:1385-99 .
- چکیده مشاهده شده: 73 بار
- IJPS_Volume 14_Issue 4_Pages 71-78 (English) دانلود شده: 22 بار