IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i6d10.1007_s41669-024-00510-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinicians’ 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)

  • Matt Quaife

    (Evidera)

  • Amy Perrin Ross

    (Loyola University Chicago)

Abstract

Background Four sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators are currently available in the USA for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). These S1PR modulators have similar efficacy. Clinicians may therefore consider other factors, such as clinical management considerations, when distinguishing among treatments. This study estimated which S1PR modulator clinicians would choose on the basis of a treatment’s clinical management and quantified how individual aspects of clinical management might drive this choice. Methods A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was conducted on the basis of clinical management preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and real-world clinical management profiles of the S1PR modulators currently available to treat relapsing forms of MS (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, siponimod). The DCE was completed by neurologists in the USA experienced in treating MS and included eight clinical management attributes: first-dose observations, genotyping, liver function tests, eye exams, drug–drug interactions, interactions with antidepressants, interactions with foods high in tyramine, and immune system recovery time. Attribute levels were selected on the basis of S1PR modulator product labels. In the MCDA, partial MCDA scores were created for each attribute and summed to produce an overall MCDA score for each S1PR modulator. Results The DCE was completed by 200 neurologists. The overall MCDA score was highest for ponesimod (4.78 points), followed by siponimod (4.10 points), fingolimod (3.61 points), and ozanimod (2.38 points). Having fewer drug–drug interactions contributed most to the overall scores (up to 1.56 points), followed by having no first-dose observations (0.95 points), the shortest immune system recovery time (0.94 points), and not interacting with foods high in tyramine (0.86 points). Conclusion When considering clinical management convenience, the average US-based neurologist treating MS is likely to choose ponesimod over siponimod, fingolimod, or ozanimod. The strongest driver of preferences was the number of drug–drug interactions. This information can help inform recommendations for the treatment of MS and facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00510-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00510-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00510-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00510-w?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    3. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    4. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    5. Zac Coates & Michelle Kelly & Scott Brown, 2024. "The Relationship between Climate Anxiety and Pro-Environment Behaviours," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Plaxcedes Chiwire & Charlotte Beaudart & Silvia M. Evers & Hassan Mahomed & Mickaël Hiligsmann, 2022. "Enhancing Public Participation in Public Health Offerings: Patient Preferences for Facilities in the Western Cape Province Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, January.
    7. Frimpong, Jemima A. & Helleringer, Stephane, 2020. "Financial Incentives for Downloading COVID–19 Digital Contact Tracing Apps," SocArXiv 9vp7x, Center for Open Science.
    8. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    10. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Danso, G. K. & Otoo, Miriam & Duy Linh, N. & Madurangi, Ganesha, "undated". "Households’ willingness-to-pay for fish product attributes and implications for market feasibility of wastewater-based aquaculture businesses in Hanoi, Vietnam," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048216, International Water Management Institute.
    12. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Koşar, Gizem & Ransom, Tyler & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2022. "Understanding migration aversion using elicited counterfactual choice probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 123-147.
    14. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    15. Jackson Bunyangha & Agnes. W. N. Muthumbi & Anthony Egeru & Robert Asiimwe & Dunston W. Ulwodi & Nathan. N. Gichuki & Mwanjalolo. J. G. Majaliwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes for Sustainable Wetland Management in Mpologoma Catchment, Uganda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Rodríguez-Lesmes, Paul & Góngora-Salazar, Pamela & Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Buckley, Neil & Gallego, Juan Miguel & Guindon, G. Emmanuel & Martínez, Juan Pablo & Paraje, Guillermo, 2024. "Would plain packaging and health warning labels reduce smoking in the presence of informal markets? A choice experiment in Colombia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 354(C).
    17. Nicole Stein & Stefan Spinler & Helga Vanthournout & Vered Blass, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Online Attributes in Circular Economy Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Francesco Pagliacci, 2023. "Pay more for me, I’m from the mountains! The role of the EU Mountain Product term and other credence attributes in consumers’ valuation of lamb meat," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Jinzi Zhang & Pu Ge & Xialei Li & Mei Yin & Yujia Wang & Waikit Ming & Jinhui Li & Pei Li & Xinying Sun & Yibo Wu, 2022. "Personality Effects on Chinese Public Preference for the COVID-19 Vaccination: Discrete Choice Experiment and Latent Profile Analysis Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Uehara, Takuro & Hidaka, Takeshi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Sakurai, Ryo & Cordier, Mateo, 2021. "An adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystem service improvements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    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:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00510-w. 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.