Furlan Roberto, Krishnan Sangeeta, Vietri Jeffrey
Advanced Methods, Kantar Health, Epsom, Surrey, UK.
Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Biogen, MA, USA.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Nov 23;9:1687-94. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S92520. eCollection 2015.
New longer-acting factor products will potentially allow for less frequent infusion in prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. However, the role of administration frequency relative to other treatment attributes in determining preferences for prophylactic hemophilia treatment regimens is not well understood.
To identify the relative importance of frequency of administration, efficacy, and other treatment characteristics among candidates for prophylactic treatment for hemophilia A and B.
An Internet survey was conducted among hemophilia patients and the parents of pediatric hemophilia patients in Australia, Canada, and the US. A monadic conjoint task was included in the survey, which varied frequency of administration (three, two, or one time per week for hemophilia A; twice weekly, weekly, or biweekly for hemophilia B), efficacy (no bleeding or breakthrough bleeding once every 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months), diluent volume (3 mL vs 2.5 mL for hemophilia A; 5 mL vs 3 mL for hemophilia B), vials per infusion (2 vs 1), reconstitution device (assembly required vs not), and manufacturer (established in hemophilia vs not). Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment. Respondents were told to assume that other aspects of treatment, such as risk of inhibitor development, cost, and method of distribution, would remain the same.
A total of 89 patients and/or parents of children with hemophilia A participated; another 32 were included in the exercise for hemophilia B. Relative importance was 47%, 24%, and 18% for frequency of administration, efficacy, and manufacturer, respectively, in hemophilia A; analogous values were 48%, 26%, and 21% in hemophilia B. The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences.
Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.
新型长效因子产品可能会减少血友病预防性治疗中的输注频率。然而,在确定血友病预防性治疗方案的偏好时,给药频率相对于其他治疗属性的作用尚未得到充分理解。
确定A型和B型血友病预防性治疗候选方案中给药频率、疗效及其他治疗特征的相对重要性。
在澳大利亚、加拿大和美国对血友病患者及小儿血友病患者的父母进行了一项网络调查。调查中包含一个单因素联合任务,涉及给药频率(A型血友病为每周三次、两次或一次;B型血友病为每周两次、每周一次或每两周一次)、疗效(每4个月、6个月或12个月无出血或突破性出血)、稀释液体积(A型血友病为3 mL对2.5 mL;B型血友病为5 mL对3 mL)、每次输注的瓶数(2对1)、复溶装置(需要组装与否)以及制造商(在血友病领域知名与否)。询问受访者从当前治疗方案切换至所呈现治疗方案的可能性。告知受访者假设治疗的其他方面,如产生抑制剂的风险、成本和分发方式保持不变。
共有89名A型血友病患者和/或患儿父母参与;另有32名B型血友病患者参与。在A型血友病中,给药频率、疗效和制造商的相对重要性分别为47%、24%和18%;在B型血友病中,类似数值分别为48%、26%和21%。其余属性对偏好影响不大。
预防性治疗候选患者及其护理人员表示倾向于降低给药频率和提高疗效,但偏好对给药频率比对年出血率的微小变化更敏感。