Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes

Figures & data

Figure 1 Preference assessment methods.

Notes: This review focused on quantitative controlled studies examining preference for treatment process attributes. Preference assessment methods in the reviewed studies included both types of utility studies (TTO and SG), conjoint analysis (including DCE, conjoint with willingness to pay, and MaxDiff), and contingent valuation studies. MaxDiff is a form of conjoint analysis in which participants are asked to select attributes that are most and least important when making tradeoffs between treatments.³² Abbreviations: TTO, time trade-off; SG, standard gamble; CA, conjoint analysis; CV, contingent valuation; DCE, discrete-choice experiment; WTP, willingness to pay.

Figure 2 Summary of literature search results.

Note: ^aSome articles presented more than one method of assessment.
Abbreviations: In, inclusion; Ex, exclusion; CA, conjoint analysis; CV, contingent valuation; DCE, discrete-choice experiment; WTP, willingness to pay; TTO, time trade-off; SG, standard gamble.

Table 1 Summary of studies included in the review

Citation	Clinical condition	Preference assessment method	Respondent samples	Comparison of levels within treatment process attributes						Comparison of treatment process attributes to efficacy and safety
				Route of administration	Dose frequency	Dose timing	Dose size	Treatment duration	Other	Efficacy	Safety
Diabetes studies
Aristides et al^Citation41	Type 2	DCE with WTP	Patients			E1*				−	+
Bogelund et al^Citation20	Type 2	DCE with WTP	Patients	E1*	E*	E2*				+	±
Boye et al^Citation33	Type 2	Utility (SG)	Patients		E*	NS2					−
Casciano et al^Citation31	Type 1, Type 2	DCE without WTP	Patients	E1, p = NR	X					±	±
Chancellor et al^Citation26	Type 1, Type 2	Utility (TTO)	Patients	E3*
Evans et al^Citation34	Type 1, Type 2	Utility (TTO)	General population and patients		General population sample = E* Diabetes sample = E*	General population sample: Basal only regimen = E2* Basal bolus regimen = E2* Diabetes sample: Basal only regimen = E2* Basal bolus regimen = NS
Guimaraes et al^Citation23 (results also reported in Guimaraes et al^Citation56,Citation57)	Type 1, Type 2	DCE with WTP	Patients	E1* E3* E4*						+	+
Hauber et al^Citation52	Type 2	DCE with WTP	Patients		Inconclusive: confounded with dose size		Inconclusive: confounded with dose frequency			+	±
Jendle et al^Citation25 (results also reported in Jendle et al^Citation24)	Type 2	DCE with WTP	Patients	E1*	E*					+	±
Lloyd et al^Citation36	Type 1, Type 2	DCE with WTP	Patients		E*					+	−
Mohamed et al^Citation42	Type 2	DCE without WTP	Patients				Pills once a day: Swedish sample = NS German sample = NS Pills twice a day: Swedish sample = NS German sample = E*			+	±
Pinto et al^Citation58	Type 1, Type 2	Contingent valuation	Patients	NS3
Polster et al^Citation48	Type 2	DCE without WTP Utility (TTO)	Patients		X	X				+	+
Porzsolt et al^Citation49	Type 1, Type 2	DCE without WTP	Patients			E2, p = NR				+	+
Sadri^Citation27	Not specified	Contingent valuation	General population	E3*
Sadri et al^Citation28	Type 1, Type 2	Contingent valuation	Patients	E3*
Cancer treatment studies
Aristides et al^Citation45	Advanced colorectal cancer	DCE with WTP	Proxy (oncology nurses)		NS						+
Bridges et al^Citation46	Non-small-cell lung cancer	DCE without WTP	Patients	NSS						+	+
Matzaet al^Citation19	Cancer with bone metastases	Utility (TTO)	General population	E2*				E*	Renal monitoring blood test = E*
Shafey et al^Citation50	Relapsed follicular non-Hodgkins lymphoma	DCE without WTP	Patients	NS7	NS				NS	+	+
Wong et al^Citation51	Renal cell carcinoma	DCE without WTP	Patients	E5*	NS		NS		Taken with or without food = NS	+	+
Cancer supportive care studies
Langer et al^Citation47	Solid tumors and anemia	DCE without WTP	Patients and providers (not discussed in current report)						Number of visits = U*	+
Ossa et al^Citation30	Chemotherapy-related anemia	DCE with WTP	General population	E6* NS8				E*	Administration in GP office or hospital = E* Administration in home or hospital = NS	+	+
Sung et al^Citation59	Febrile neutropenia	DCE without WTP	Patients and parents of patients (not discussed in current report)	Inconclusive: confounded with inpatient/outpatient					Inconclusive: confounded with route of administration
Teuffel et al^Citation60	Febrile neutropenia	Utility (TTO) Contingent valuation	Patients	NSS					E, p = NR
Autoimmune studies
Augustovski et al^Citation38	Rheumatoid arthritis	DCE with WTP	Patients	ES NSI	Every 10 months vs every month = E* Every 10 months vs every week = E* Every 10 months vs every day = E* Every month vs every week = U					±	±
Hauber et al^Citation35	Plaque psoriasis	DCE with WTP	Patients	Inconclusive	E*
Hodgkins et al^Citation40	Ulcerative colitis	DCE with WTP	Patients		Total sample = E* Canadian sample = E* UK sample = E* German sample = NS US sample = NS		Total sample = E* Canadian sample = NS UK sample = E* German sample = NS US sample = E*			+	+
Lichtenstein et al^Citation54	Crohn’s disease	DCE without WTP	Patients	X	X				X	±
Ozdemir et al^Citation37	Rheumatoid arthritis	DCE with WTP	Patients	Inconclusive	E*
Schaarschmidt et al^Citation53	Psoriasis	DCE with WTP	Patients	X	X			X	Location of treatment = X	±	−
Schaarschmidt et al^Citation44	Psoriasis	DCE with WTP	Patients	X	X			X	Location of treatment = X
Schmieder et al^Citation43	Psoriasis	DCE with WTP	Patients	X	X			X	Location of treatment = X	±	−
Shingler et al^Citation6	Relapsing remitting MS	DCE without WTP	Patients						Ease of use = E*
Osteoporosis studies
Darba et al^Citation29	Osteoporosis	DCE with WTP	Patients	U1* E2*					At home with medical support vs admitted to hospital for administration = E* Self-administration at home vs administration at home with medical support = E*
de Bekker-Grob et al^Citation22 (results also reported in de Bekker-Grob et al^Citation21)	Osteoporosis	DCE with WTP	Patients	E1*	Oral = E* Injection = X			E*		±	+
Fraenkel et al^Citation39	Osteoporosis	DCE with WTP	Patients	Inconclusive	Inconclusive			Inconclusive		−	−
Silverman et al^Citation32	Osteoporosis	MaxDiff	Patients	E1, p = NR Inconclusive6 Inconclusive7	U, p = NR					+	+

Notes:

* The preference is statistically significant. NS, the preference is not statistically significant, but there is a preference trend. p = NR, the statistical significance is not reported.

Route of administration: E, expected order of preference was found; U, unexpected order of preference was found; X, preference between levels of route of administration is not presented; blank, route of administration was not examined in this study; I, oral vs injection, 2, injection vs infusion, 3, inhaled vs injection, 4, oral vs inhaled, 5, oral vs infusion, 6, subcutaneous injection vs IV injection, 7, oral vs IV injections, and 8, IV injection vs cannula injection.

Dose frequency: E, expected order of preference was found indicating that less frequency dosing was preferred over more frequent dosing; U, unexpected order of preference was found; X, preference between levels of dose frequency is not presented; blank, dose frequency was not examined in this study.

Dose timing: E, expected order of preference was found; U, unexpected order of preference was found; X, preference between levels of dose timing not presented; blank, dose timing was not examined in this study; I, injecting immediately before meals vs injecting 30–45 minutes before meals, 2, more flexible timing (eg, any time of day) vs less flexible timing (eg, with meals).

Dose size: E, expected order of preference was found indicating that smaller dose size is preferred over a larger dose size; E, fewer tablets preferred over a greater number of tablets; U, unexpected order of preference found; X, preference between levels of dose size is not presented; blank, dose size was not examined in this study.

Treatment duration: E, expected order of preference was found indicating that shorter treatment duration was preferred over longer treatment duration; U, unexpected order of preference was found; X, preference between levels of treatment duration was not presented; blank, treatment duration was not examined in this study.

Other: E, expected order for the indicated attribute was found; U, unexpected order of preference for the indicated attribute was found; X, preference between levels of the indicated attribute was not presented; blank, other treatment process attributes were not examined in this study.

Efficacy: +, efficacy was more important than all treatment process attributes; −, treatment process attributes were more important than efficacy; ±, mixed results; blank, no comparison between treatment process attributes and efficacy.

Safety: +, safety was more important than all treatment process attributes; −, treatment process attributes were more important than safety; ±, mixed results; blank, no comparison between treatment process attributes and safety.

Abbreviations: DCE, discrete-choice experiment; WTP, willingness to pay; TTO, time trade-off; IV, intravenous; GP, general practitioner; MS, multiple sclerosis; SG, standard gamble.

SilvermanSCalderonAKawKPatient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysisOsteoporos Int20132472067207723247328

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AristidesMWestonARFitzGeraldPLe ReunCManiadakisNPatient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experimentValue Health20047444245415449636

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BogelundMVilsbollTFaberJHenriksenJEGjesingRPLammertMPatient preferences for diabetes management among people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark – a discrete choice experimentCurr Med Res Opin201127112175218321981417

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BoyeKSMatzaLSWalterKNVan BruntKPalsgroveACTynanAUtilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetesEur J Health Econ201112321923020224930

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CascianoRMalangoneERamachandranAGagliardinoJJA quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulinInt J Clin Pract201165440841421401829

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ChancellorJAballeaSLawrenceAPreferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimensPharmacoeconomics200826321723418282016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

EvansMJensenHHBogelundMGundgaardJChubbBKhuntiKFlexible insulin dosing improves health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL): a time trade-off surveyJ Med Econ201316111357136524111563

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

GuimaraesCMarraCAColleyLA valuation of patients’ willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetesInt J Technol Assess Health Care200925335936619619355

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GuimaraesCMarraCAColleyLSocioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetesDiabetes Technol Ther200911956757319764835

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GuimaraesCMarraCAGillSA discrete choice experiment evaluation of patients’ preferences for different risk, benefit, and delivery attributes of insulin therapy for diabetes managementPatient Prefer Adherence2010443344021301591

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HauberABHanSYangJCEffect of pill burden on dosing preferences, willingness to pay, and likely adherence among patients with type 2 diabetesPatient Prefer Adherence2013793794924086104

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JendleJTorffvitORidderstraleMLammertMEricssonABogelundMWillingness to pay for health improvements associated with anti-diabetes treatments for people with type 2 diabetesCurr Med Res Opin201026491792320163195

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JendleJTorffvitORidderstraleMEricssonANilsenBBogelundMWillingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme resultsJ Med Econ201215Suppl 21522853443

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

LloydANafeesBBarnettAHWillingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitusClin Ther20113391258126721862132

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MohamedAFZhangJJohnsonFRAvoidance of weight gain is important for oral type 2 diabetes treatments in Sweden and Germany: patient preferencesDiabetes Metab201339539740323880594

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

PintoSLHoliday-GoodmanMBlackCDLeschDIdentifying factors that affect patients’ willingness to pay for inhaled insulinRes Social Adm Pharm20095325326119733826

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

PolsterMZanuttoEMcDonaldSConnerCHammerMA comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products – liraglutide and exenatide – for the treatment of type 2 diabetesJ Med Econ201013465566121034377

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

PorzsoltFClouthJDeutschmannMHipplerHJPreferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care valuesHealth Qual Life Outcomes2010812521050469

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SadriHContingent valuation of inhaled insulin: a Canadian perspectiveJ Med Econ2007104475487

 Google Scholar

SadriHMacKeiganLDLeiterLAEinarsonTRWillingness to pay for inhaled insulin: a contingent valuation approachPharmacoeconomics200523121215122716336016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AristidesMChenJSchulzMWilliamsonEClarkeSGrantKConjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancerPharmacoeconomics2002201177578412201796

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BridgesJFMohamedAFFinnernHWWoehlAHauberABPatients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysisLung Cancer201277122423122369719

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MatzaLSCongZChungKUtilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastasesPatient Prefer Adherence2013785586524039408

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ShafeyMLupichukSMDoTOwenCStewartDAPreferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experimentBone Marrow Transplant201146796296920935681

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WongMKMohamedAFHauberABPatients rank toxicity against progression free survival in second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinomaJ Med Econ20121561139114822808923

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

LangerCJFastenauJMForlenzaJBEffectiveness versus convenience: patient preferences for an erythropoietic agent to treat cancer-related anemiaCurr Med Res Opin2007231859217257469

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

OssaDFBriggsAMcIntoshECowellWLittlewoodTSculpherMRecombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and health-related quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methodsPharmacoeconomics200725322323717335308

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SungLAlibhaiSMEthierMCDiscrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropeniaJ Clin Epidemiol201265662763422424607

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

TeuffelOChengSEthierMCHealth-related quality of life anticipated with different management strategies for febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patientsSupport Care Cancer201220112755276422350594

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AugustovskiFBeratarrecheaAIrazolaVPatient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experimentValue Health201316238539323538191

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HauberABGonzalezJMSchenkelBLoflandJHMartinSThe value to patients of reducing lesion severity in plaque psoriasisJ Dermatolog Treat201122526627521781015

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

HodgkinsPSwinburnPSolomonDYenLDewildeSLloydAPatient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experimentPatient201251334422077619

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

LichtensteinGRWatersHCKellyJAssessing drug treatment preferences of patients with Crohn’s disease: a conjoint analysisPatient201032113123

 Google Scholar

OzdemirSJohnsonFRHauberABHypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health careJ Health Econ200928489490119464743

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SchaarschmidtMLSchmiederAUmarNPatient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributesArch Dermatol2011147111285129422106115

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

SchaarschmidtMLUmarNSchmiederAPatient preferences for psoriasis treatments: impact of treatment experienceJ Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol201327218719822225546

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SchmiederASchaarschmidtMLUmarNComorbidities significantly impact patients’ preferences for psoriasis treatmentsJ Am Acad Dermatol201267336337222015150

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AllanLHaysHJensenNHRandomised crossover trial of transdermal fentanyl and sustained release oral morphine for treating chronic non-cancer painBMJ200132272951154115811348910

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DarbaJRestovicGKaskensLPatient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experimentOsteoporos Int20112261947195420838770

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Bekker-GrobEWEssink-BotMLMeerdingWJPolsHAKoesBWSteyerbergEWPatients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experimentOsteoporos Int20081971029103718193329

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Bekker-GrobEWEssink-BotMLMeerdingWJKoesBWSteyerbergEWPreferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experimentPharmacoeconomics200927321121919354341

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FraenkelLGulanskiBWittinkDPatient treatment preferences for osteoporosisArthritis Rheum200655572973517013870

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar