4.3 Article

Quantifying patient preferences for systemic atopic dermatitis treatments using a discrete-choice experiment

期刊

JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 1449-1458

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1832185

关键词

Atopic dermatitis; discrete-choice experiment; maximum acceptable risk; patient preference

资金

  1. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified the important attributes for systemic atopic dermatitis treatments through qualitative interviews and an online survey. The findings showed that patients prioritize attributes such as safety risks, efficacy, and mode of administration.
Objectives To identify meaningful treatment attributes and quantify patient preferences for attributes of systemic atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments. Materials and methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with moderate-to-severe AD (N = 21) to identify AD treatment attributes that patients consider most important and inform attribute selection for an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey administered to patients in the United States with moderate-to-severe AD. Participants identified probability of clear/almost clear skin at 16 weeks, time to itch relief, mode of administration, and safety risks as very important. DCE data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model to estimate the relative importance of treatment attributes and maximum acceptable risk. Results A total of 320 respondents completed the DCE survey (74% female; mean age, 35 years). Annual risk of malignancy was the most important attribute, followed by mode of administration, probability of clear skin at 16 weeks, and time to onset of itch relief. Respondents preferred daily oral treatment over injectable treatment. Respondents were willing to accept increases in adverse event risks for improvements in efficacy and mode of administration. Conclusion The findings of this study can help inform joint patient-physician decision making in managing moderate-to-severe AD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据