Real-world treatment preferences among health care providers in the United States in selecting disease modifying therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis: a discrete choice experiment

References

• Dobson R, Giovannoni G. Multiple sclerosis—a review. Eur J Neurol. 2019;26(1):27–40. doi: 10.1111/ene.13819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duquette P, Pleines J, Girard M, et al. The increased susceptibility of women to multiple sclerosis. Can J Neurol Sci. 1992;19(4):466–471. doi: 10.1111/ene.13819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldenberg MM. Multiple sclerosis review. P T. 2012;37(3):175–184.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harbo HF, Gold R, Tintore M. Sex and gender issues in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2013;6(4):237–248. doi: 10.1177/1756285613488434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kister I, Bacon TE, Chamot E, et al. Natural history of multiple sclerosis symptoms. Int J MS Care. 2013;15(3):146–158. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2012-053.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lunde HMB, Assmus J, Myhr KM, et al. Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: a 60-year longitudinal population study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017;88(8):621–625. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2016-315238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poser S, Kurtzke JF, Poser W, et al. Survival in multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(2):159–168. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90089-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinman L. Multiple sclerosis: a coordinated immunological attack against myelin in the central nervous system. Cell. 1996;85(3):299–302. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81107-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grytten Torkildsen N, Lie SA, Aarseth JH, et al. Survival and cause of death in multiple sclerosis: results from a 50-year follow-up in Western Norway. Mult Scler. 2008;14(9):1191–1198. doi: 10.1177/1352458508093890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: a population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1029–e1040. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torkildsen O, Myhr KM, Bo L. Disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis—a review of approved medications. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23(Suppl 1):18–27. doi: 10.1111/ene.12883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claflin SB, Tan B, Taylor BV. The long-term effects of disease modifying therapies on disability in people living with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;36:101374. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2019.08.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrovsky L. Mavenclad (cladribine) first short-course oral therapy approved for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and active secondary progressive disease; 2019. Available from: https://www.ahdbonline.com/issues/2019/2019-payers-guide-mid-year-addendum/2807-mavenclad-cladribine-first-short-course-oral-therapy-approved-for-relapsing-remitting-multiple-sclerosis-and-active-secondary-progressive-disease
   Google Scholar
• Steinman L, Fox E, Hartung HP, et al. Ublituximab versus teriflunomide in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(8):704–714. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2201904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travers BS, Tsang BK, Barton JL. Multiple sclerosis: diagnosis, disease-modifying therapy and prognosis. Aust J Gen Pract. 2022;51(4):199–206. doi: 10.31128/AJGP-07-21-6103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Ambrosio D, Freedman MS, Prinz J. Ponesimod, a selective S1P1 receptor modulator: a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis and other immune-mediated diseases. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2016;7(1):18–33. doi: 10.1177/2040622315617354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghezzi A. European and American guidelines for multiple sclerosis treatment. Neurol Ther. 2018;7(2):189–194. doi: 10.1007/s40120-018-0112-1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garcia-Dominguez JM, Munoz D, Comellas M, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of multiple sclerosis with disease-modifying therapies: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1945–1956. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S114619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hincapie AL, Penm J, Burns CF. Factors associated with patient preferences for disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(8):822–830. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.8.822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonker MF, Donkers B, Goossens LMA, et al. Summarizing patient preferences for the competitive landscape of multiple sclerosis treatment options. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(2):198–211. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19897944.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar J, Cambron-Mellott MJ, Tencer T, et al. Patient and neurologist preferences in the United States for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatments: findings from a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:1515–1527. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S306498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield C, Thomas N, Gebben D, et al. Preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments: using a discrete-choice experiment to examine differences across subgroups of US patients. Int J MS Care. 2017;19(4):172–183. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2016-039.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mansfield CA, Thomas N, Gebben D. US RRMS patient preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments: an online survey. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A761. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2486.
   Google Scholar
• Poulos C, Wakeford C, Kinter E, et al. Patient and physician preferences for multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany: a discrete-choice experiment study. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2020;6(1):2055217320910778. doi: 10.1177/2055217320910778.
   Google Scholar
• Tatlock S, Sully K, Batish A, et al. Individual differences in the patient experience of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS): a multi-country qualitative exploration of drivers of treatment preferences among people living with RMS. Patient. 2023;16(4):345–357. doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00617-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hajjaj FM, Salek MS, Basra MK, et al. Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice. J R Soc Med. 2010;103(5):178–187. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2010.100104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyrbye LN, Shanafelt TD. Physician burnout: a potential threat to successful health care reform. JAMA. 2011;305(19):2009–2010. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming ML, Driver L, Sansgiry SS, et al. Drug enforcement administration rescheduling of hydrocodone combination products is associated with changes in physician pain management prescribing preferences. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2019;33(1-2):22–31. doi: 10.1080/15360288.2019.1615027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stockl KM, Hughes TE, Jarrar MA, et al. Physician perceptions of the use of medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9(5):416–423. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2003.9.5.416.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• White J, Teoh S, Vindici J, et al. The burden of treatment monitoring for patients and physicians in multiple sclerosis (MS) in Europe and the United States. Multiple Sclerosis J. 2019;25:321–321.
   Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Wang Z, Wang Z, et al. Application of discrete choice experiment in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Front Public Health. 2021;9:673698. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.673698.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aubagio. Aubagio (teriflunomide) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.aubagio.com/
   Google Scholar
• Copaxone. Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.copaxonehcp.com
   Google Scholar
• Gilenya. Gilenya (fingolimod) product information; 2022. Available from: https://www.gilenya.com/
   Google Scholar
• Interferons. Interferons product information; 2021. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/103628s5266lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kesimpta. Kesimpta (ofatumumab) product information; 2022. Available from: https://www.kesimptahcp.com
   Google Scholar
• Mavenclad. Mavenclad (cladribine) product information; 2022. Available from: https://www.mavenclad.com
   Google Scholar
• Mayzent. Mayzent (Siponimod) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.mayzent.com/
   Google Scholar
• Ocrevus. Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.ocrevus-hcp.com/
   Google Scholar
• Tecfidera. Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.tecfiderahcp.com/
   Google Scholar
• Tysabri. Tysabri (natalizumab) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.tysabri.com
   Google Scholar
• Zeposia. Zeposia (ozanimod) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.zeposia.com
   Google Scholar
• Vumerity. Vumerity (diroximel fumarate) product information; 2023. Available from: https://www.vumerity.com
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer BB, Devonshire V, Charbonne A, et al. An international discrete choice experiment assessing patients’ preferences for disease-modifying therapy attributes in multiple sclerosis. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2020;10(6):369–382. doi: 10.2217/nmt-2020-0034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagura N, Haggard P, Diedrichsen J. Perceptual decisions are biased by the cost to act. eLife. 2017;6:e18422. doi: 10.7554/eLife.18422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobler CC, Harb N, Maguire CA, et al. Treatment burden should be included in clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2018;363:k4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman BW, Mathew AR, Carpenter MJ. Treatment burden and treatment fatigue as barriers to health. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;5:31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao SK, Kimball AB, Lehrhoff SR, et al. The impact of administrative burden on academic physicians: results of a hospital-wide physician survey. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):237–243. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU. Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians’ working hours and lowers their career satisfaction. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):635–642. doi: 10.2190/HS.44.4.a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tencer TA-OX, Will OA-O, Kumar JA-O, et al. Patient and neurologist preferences in the UK for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatments: findings from a discrete choice experiment. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(9):1589–1598. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1940911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar