Patient preferences for elagolix and leuprolide for treating endometriosis-related pain in the United States

ABSTRACT

Introduction

We evaluated elagolix and leuprolide from the patient’s perspective for the treatment of endometriosis-related pain.

Area covered

Preference weights from a published discrete choice experiment were used to evaluate preferences for treatment profiles simulating elagolix (150 mg/day and 200 mg/twice-daily dosages) and leuprolide for the treatment of moderate to severe endometriosis-related pain. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying the range of risk for pregnancy-related problems, moderate to severe hot flashes, and bone fracture across scenarios.

Expert opinion

The 200 mg twice daily dosage of elagolix is more likely to be preferred over leuprolide by patients with moderate to severe endometriosis-related pain in all scenarios explored in the evaluation and sensitivity analyses. The probability that an average respondent would select a treatment was sensitive to increases in risk of moderate to severe hot flashes for leuprolide and possible variations in the risk of pregnancy-related problems for both treatments but was not influenced by an increased risk of bone fracture.

Conclusions

Patients’ preferences for treatment of endometriosis-related pain should be evaluated using the benefits and risks of each pharmacological option. Respondents were more likely to prefer the treatment profile similar to 200 mg twice daily elagolix over that of leuprolide in all scenarios.

KEYWORDS:

• Benefit-risk preferences
• discrete choice
• endometriosis
• pain
• risk tolerance

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Samsell of RTI Health Solutions for medical writing assistance, Kimberly Moon of RTI Health Solutions for project management assistance, and Denise Lingenfelser of RTI Health Solutions for graphic design assistance. AbbVie funded these activities.

Author contributions

CP and AMS were involved in the conception and design. All authors were involved in the analysis or intrepretation of the data and drafting the manuscript. All authors provided final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of interest

CP is an RTI Health Solutions employee. AS and ST are AbbVie employees and hold AbbVie stock. SA is a consultant for AbbVie but did not receive compensation for participation in this study or manuscript preparation. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Supplemental material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

The design and financial support for the study were provided by AbbVie Inc. RTI Health Solutions received funding under a research contract with AbbVie Inc. to conduct this study and provide editorial support in the form of manuscript writing, styling, and submission. AbbVie participated in data analysis, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the manuscript.