Modeling the impact of patient treatment preference on health outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

References

• Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet. 2008;372(9648):1502–1517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luessi F, Siffrin V, Zipp F. Neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis: novel treatment strategies. Exp Rev Neurother. 2012;12(9):1061–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noseworthy JH, Lucchinetti C, Rodriguez M, et al. Multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(13):938–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamm CP, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH. Multiple sclerosis: current knowledge and future outlook. Eur Neurol. 2014;72(3–4):132–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jongen PJ. Health-related quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis: impact of disease-modifying drugs. CNS Drugs. 2017;31(7):585–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farber RS, Sand IK. Optimizing the initial choice and timing of therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015;8(5):212–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giovannoni G, Butzkueven H, Dhib-Jalbut S, et al. Brain health: time matters in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;9:S5–S48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson KM, Zhou H, Lin F, et al. Real-world adherence and persistence to oral disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis patients over 1 year. JMCP. 2017;23(8):844–852.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grand'Maison F, Yeung M, Morrow SA, et al. Sequencing of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a theoretical approach to optimizing treatment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(8):1419–1430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merkel B, Butzkueven H, Traboulsee AL, et al. Timing of high-efficacy therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Autoimmun Rev. 2017;16(6):658–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duquette P, Yeung M, Mouallif S, et al. A retrospective claims analysis: compliance and discontinuation rates among Canadian patients with multiple sclerosis treated with disease-modifying therapies. PloS One. 2019;14(1):e0210417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Setayeshgar S, Kingwell E, Zhu F, et al. Persistence and adherence to the new oral disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;27:364–369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans C, Marrie RA, Zhu F, et al. Adherence and persistence to drug therapies for multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;8:78–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen BA, Coyle PK, Leist T, et al. Therapy optimization in multiple sclerosis: a cohort study of therapy adherence and risk of relapse. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4(1):75–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lizan L, Comellas M, Paz S, et al. Treatment adherence and other patient-reported outcomes as cost determinants in multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1653–1664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinberg SC, Faris RJ, Chang CF, et al. Impact of adherence to interferons in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a non-experimental, retrospective, cohort study. Clin Drug Investig. 2010;30(2):89–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devonshire V, Lapierre Y, Macdonell R, for the GAP Study Group, et al. The Global Adherence Project (GAP): a multicenter observational study on adherence to disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18(1):69–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao J, Pitcavage J, Jones JB, et al. Measuring adherence and outcomes in the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2017;117(12):737–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burks J, Marshall T, Ye X. Adherence to disease-modifying therapies and its impact on relapse, health resource utilization, and costs among patients with multiple sclerosis. CEOR. 2017;9:251–260.
   Google Scholar
• Yermakov S, Davis M, Calnan M, et al. Impact of increasing adherence to disease-modifying therapies on healthcare resource utilization and direct medical and indirect work loss costs for patients with multiple sclerosis. J Med Eco. 2015;18(9):711–720.
   Google Scholar
• Linker RA, Kieseier BC, Gold R. Identification and development of new therapeutics for multiple sclerosis. Trend Pharmacol Sci. 2008;29(11):558–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottomley C, Lloyd A, Bennett G, et al. A discrete choice experiment to determine UK patient preference for attributes of disease modifying treatments in Multiple Sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(8):863–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlin CS, Higuera L, Anderson S. Improving patient-centered care by assessing patient preferences for multiple sclerosis disease-modifying agents: a stated-choice experiment. PERMJ. 2017;21:16–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poulos C, Kinter E, van Beek J, et al. Preferences of patients with multiple sclerosis for attributes of injectable multiple sclerosis treatments in the United Kingdom and France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(4):425–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Dominguez JM, Muñoz D, Comellas M, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of multiple sclerosis with disease-modifying therapies: a discrete choice experiment. PPA. 2016;10:1945–1956.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utz KS, Hoog J, Wentrup A, et al. Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2014;7(6):263–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson LS, Loucks A, Gipson G, et al. Patient preferences for attributes of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: development and results of a ratings-based conjoint analysis. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(2):74–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rieckmann P, Centonze D, Elovaara I, et al. Unmet needs, burden of treatment, and patient engagement in multiple sclerosis: a combined perspective from the MS in the 21st Century Steering Group. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2018;19:153–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeandle D, Rieckmann P, Giovannoni G, et al. Patient power revolution in multiple sclerosis: navigating the new frontier. Neurol Ther. 2018;7(2):179–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Zacharia A, Adamson M, Boyd A, et al. Impact of shared decision making on disease-modifying drug adherence in multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2018;20(6):287–297.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lugaresi A, Ziemssen T, Oreja-Guevara C, et al. Improving patient-physician dialog: commentary on the results of the MS Choices survey. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:143–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Col NF, Solomon AJ, Springmann V, et al. Whose preferences matter? A patient-centered approach for eliciting treatment goals. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(1):44–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Plan for Issuance of Patient‐Focused Drug Development Guidance. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS Quality Measure Development Plan: Supporting the Transition to The Quality Payment Program 2017 Annual Report. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Jonker MF, Donkers B, Gossens L, et al. Summarizing patients’ preferences for the competitive landscape of multiple sclerosis treatment options. Medical Decision Making. In Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilmington Healthcare. Specialist Patient Share – Multiple Sclerosis. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen HS, Small KA. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica. 1981;49:105–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):901–907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Hettle R, Harty G, Wong SL. Cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets, alemtuzumab, and natalizumab in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with high disease activity in England. J Med Eco. 2018;21(7):676–686.
   Google Scholar
• Palace J, Bregenzer T, Tremlett H, et al. UK multiple sclerosis risk-sharing scheme: a new natural history dataset and an improved Markov model. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e004073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremlett H, Zhao Y, Rieckmann P, et al. New perspectives in the natural history of multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2010;74(24):2004–2015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giovannoni G, Comi G, Cook S, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral cladribine for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):416–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MK, Khurana IS, Budhia S, et al. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of cladribine tablets versus alternative disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(8):1361–1371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Technology appraisal guidance [TA32]. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Daclizumab for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis [TA441]. Technology appraisal guidance. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ocrelizumab for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis [TA533]. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cladribine tablets for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis [TA493]. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Giovannoni G, Soelberg Sorensen P, Cook S, et al. Efficacy of cladribine tablets in high disease activity subgroups of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: a post hoc analysis of the CLARITY study. Mult Scler. 2019;25(6):819–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawton A, Green C. Health utilities for multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2016;19(4):460–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme M, Kerrigan J, Tyas D, et al. The effect of disease, functional status, and relapses on the utility of people with multiple sclerosis in the UK. Value Health. 2007;10(1):54–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acaster S, Perard R, Chauhan D, et al. A forgotten aspect of the NICE reference case: an observational study of the health related quality of life impact on caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):346.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alemtuzumab for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis [TA312]. Technology appraisal guidance. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Boye KS, Matza LS, Walter KN, et al. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):219–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips JT, Selmaj K, Gold R, et al. Clinical significance of gastrointestinal and flushing events in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with delayed-release dimethyl fumarate. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(5):236–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Merck. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Mavenclad (cladribine tablets) in relapsing remitting mutliple sclerosis technical report. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jick SS, Li L, Falcone GJ, et al. Mortality of patients with multiple sclerosis: a cohort study in UK primary care. J Neurol. 2014;261(8):1508–1517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coles AJ, Compston DA, Selmaj KW, CAMMS223 Trial Investigators, et al. Alemtuzumab vs. interferon beta-1a in early multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1786–1801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen JA, Coles AJ, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9856):1819–1828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coles AJ, Twyman CL, Arnold DL, et al. Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet2012;380(9856):1829–1839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox RJ, Miller DH, Phillips JT, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1087–1097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold R, Kappos L, Arnold DL, et al. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1098–1107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Radue E-W, O'Connor P, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):387–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabresi PA, Radue EW, Goodin D, et al. Safety and efficacy of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS II): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(6):545–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikol DD, Barkhof F, Chang P, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a with glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (the REbif vs Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing MS Disease [REGARD] study): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(10):903–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadavid D, Wolansky LJ, Skurnick J, et al. Efficacy of treatment of MS with IFNbeta-1b or glatiramer acetate by monthly brain MRI in the BECOME study. Neurology. 2009;72(23):1976–1983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9139):1498–1504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kappos L, Wiendl H, Selmaj K, et al. Daclizumab HYP versus interferon Beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(15):1418–1428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durelli L, Verdun E, Barbero P, et al. Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN). Lancet. 2002;359(9316):1453–1460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polman CH, O'Connor PW, Havrdova E, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(9):899–910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Connor P, Wolinsky JS, Confavreux C, et al. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(14):1293–1303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Teriflunomide for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis [TA303]. Technology appraisal guidance. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dimethyl fumarate for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis [TA320]. Technology appraisal guidance. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Palace J, Duddy M, Bregenzer T, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the UK Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme at 6 years: a clinical cohort study with natural history comparator. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(5):497–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne P, Chandraratna D, Angood C, et al. Atlas of multiple sclerosis 2013: a growing global problem with widespread inequity. Neurology. 2014;83(11):1022–1024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie IS, Morant SV, Bloomfield GA, et al. Incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the UK 1990–2010: a descriptive study in the General Practice Research Database. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2014;85(1):76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruutiainen J, Viita AM, Hahl J, et al. Burden of illness in multiple sclerosis (DEFENSE) study: the costs and quality-of-life of Finnish patients with multiple sclerosis. J Med Eco. 2016;19(1):21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Kalincik T. Multiple sclerosis relapses: epidemiology, outcomes and management. a systematic review. Neuroepidemiology. 2015;44(4):199–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Multiple Sclerosis Platform. Multiple sclerosis in Europe 2015 [2019]. [cited 2020 Jan 6]. Available from: http://www.emsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MS-in-EU-access.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guidance: Multiple Sclerosis 2016 [2019]. [cited 2020 Jan 6]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/QS108/chapter/List-of-quality-statements.
   Google Scholar
• Multiple Sclerosis Society. My MS My Needs 2016: Access to treatment and health care technical report. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Heesen C, Kasper J, Kopke S, et al. Informed shared decision making in multiple sclerosis–inevitable or impossible? J Neurol Sci. 2007;259(1-2):109–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody DS. The patient's role in clinical decision-making. Ann Intern Med. 1980;93(5):718–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Preven Med. 1999;17(4):285–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G. Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? JAMA. 1984;252(21):2990–2994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron E, Rog D, McDonnell G, et al. Factors influencing multiple sclerosis disease-modifying treatment prescribing decisions in the United Kingdom: a qualitative interview study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;27:378–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vermersch P, Martinelli V, Pfleger C, et al. Benefit-risk assessment of cladribine using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther. 2019;41(2):249–260.e18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roumie CL, Greevy R, Wallston KA, et al. Patient centered primary care is associated with patient hypertension medication adherence. J Behav Med. 2011;34(4):244–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn KL, Schneider EC, Malin JL, et al. Patient centered experiences in breast cancer: predicting long-term adherence to tamoxifen use. Med Care. 2007;45(5):431–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson JH, Callister LC, Berry JA, et al. Patient-centered care and adherence: definitions and applications to improve outcomes. J Am Acad Nurse Prac. 2008;20(12):600–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar