IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i6d10.1007_s40271-024-00699-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Keenan

    (Janssen Scientific Affairs)

  • Chiara Whichello

    (Evidera)

  • Hoa H. Le

    (Janssen Scientific Affairs)

  • David M. Kern

    (Janssen Research and Development)

  • Gabriela S. Fernandez

    (Evidera)

  • Vicky Turner

    (Evidera)

  • Anup Das

    (Evidera)

  • Matthew Quaife

    (Evidera)

  • Amy Perrin Ross

    (Loyola University Chicago)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Keenan & Chiara Whichello & Hoa H. Le & David M. Kern & Gabriela S. Fernandez & Vicky Turner & Anup Das & Matthew Quaife & Amy Perrin Ross, 2024. "Patients’ Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(6), pages 685-696, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00699-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00699-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00699-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-024-00699-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Lucas M.A. Goossens & Renske J. Hoefman & Lea J. Jabbarian & Esther W. de Bekker-Grob & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Gerard Harty & Schiffon L. Wong, 2020. "Summarizing Patient Preferences for the Competitive Landscape of Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Options," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 198-211, February.
    2. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-35, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Keenan & Chiara Whichello & Hoa H. Le & David M. Kern & Gabriela S. Fernandez & Vicky Turner & Anup Das & Matt Quaife & Amy Perrin Ross, 2024. "Clinicians’ Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 857-867, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    2. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    3. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    4. Kingsley Adjenughwure & Basil Papadopoulos, 2019. "Towards a Fair and More Transparent Rule-Based Valuation of Travel Time Savings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    7. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2018. "Comparing mortality risk reduction, life expectancy gains, and probability of achieving full life span, as alternatives for presenting CVD mortality risk reduction: A discrete choice study of framing ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 164-174.
    8. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Tay T. R. Koo & Carlo Caponecchia & Ann Williamson, 2018. "How important is safety in making flight choices? Evidence from simple choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 159-175, January.
    10. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    11. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2010. "Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-14.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    13. Jorien Veldwijk & Rachael Lynn DiSantostefano & Ellen Janssen & Gwenda Simons & Matthias Englbrecht & Karin Schölin Bywall & Christine Radawski & Karim Raza & Brett Hauber & Marie Falahee, 2023. "Maximum Acceptable Risk Estimation Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Probabilistic Threshold Technique," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 641-653, November.
    14. Li, Weibo & Kamargianni, Maria, 2018. "Providing quantified evidence to policy makers for promoting bike-sharing in heavily air-polluted cities: A mode choice model and policy simulation for Taiyuan-China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 277-291.
    15. Sarfo, Yaw & Musshoff, Oliver & Weber, Ron & Danne, Michael, 2021. "Farmers’ willingness to pay for digital and conventional credit: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Madagascar," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317074, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    17. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "New software tools for creating stated choice experimental designs efficient for regret minimisation and utility maximisation decision rules," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 104-123.
    18. Aljohani, Khalid & Thompson, Russell G., 2020. "Receivers-led delivery consolidation policy: Estimating the characteristics of the most interested businesses to participate," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    19. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Eva Ayaragarnchanakul & Felix Creutzig & Aneeque Javaid & Nattapong Puttanapong, 2022. "Choosing a Mode in Bangkok: Room for Shared Mobility?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    21. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    22. Dissanayake, Dilum & Morikawa, Takayuki, 2010. "Investigating household vehicle ownership, mode choice and trip sharing decisions using a combined revealed preference/stated preference Nested Logit model: case study in Bangkok Metropolitan Region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 402-410.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00699-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.