Patient and physician preferences for attributes of biologic medications for severe asthma

References

• Espanol T, Prevot J, Drabwell J, Sondhi S, Olding L. Improving current immunoglobulin therapy for patients with primary immunodeficiency: quality of life and views on treatment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:621–629. doi:10.2147/PPA.S6077124833896
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed AF, Kilambi V, Luo MP, Iyer RG, Li-McLeod JM. Patient and parent preferences for immunoglobulin treatments: a conjoint analysis. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1183–1191. doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.71680422846048
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chipps BE, Zeiger RS, Borish L, et al. Key findings and clinical implications from the epidemiology and natural history of asthma: outcomes and Treatment Regimens (TENOR) study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(2):332 e310–342 e310. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2012.04.01422694932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canonica GW, Senna G, Mitchell PD, O’Byrne PM, Passalacqua G, Varricchi G. Therapeutic interventions in severe asthma. World Allergy Organ J. 2016;9(1):40. doi:10.1186/s40413-016-0118-z27942351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2017; Available from: www.ginasthma.org. Accessed 97, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Lotvall J, Akdis CA, Bacharier LB, et al. Asthma endotypes: a new approach to classification of disease entities within the asthma syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(2):355–360. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.03721281866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayele Y, Engidawork E, Bayisa T. Assessment of inhaled corticosteroids use and associated factors among asthmatic patients attending Tikur anbessa specialized hospital, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):314. doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2645-228743293
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bousquet J, Winchester C, Papi A, et al. Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy for asthma: attitudes of specialists in Europe. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2012;157(3):303–310. doi:10.1159/00032951922056555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16(2):385–393. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.11.00723538191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolge SC, Eldridge HM, Lofland JH, Ravin C, Hart PJ, Ingham MP. Patient experience with intravenous biologic therapies for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:661–669. doi:10.2147/PPA.S12103228405158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolge SC, Goren A, Brown D, Ginsberg S, Allen I. Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1079–1090. doi:10.2147/PPA.S10779027390518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolge SC, Goren A, Tandon N. Reasons for discontinuation of subcutaneous biologic therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a patient perspective. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:121–131. doi:10.2147/PPA.S7083425653505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantini F, Niccoli L, Nannini C, et al. Tailored first-line biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;45(5):519–532. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.10.00126607440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desplats M, Pascart T, Jelin G, et al. Are abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based study. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(6):1395–1400. doi:10.1007/s10067-017-3587-828255739
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glauser TA, Ruderman EM, Kummerle D, Kelly S. Current practice patterns and educational needs of rheumatologists who manage patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Ther. 2014;1(1):31–44. doi:10.1007/s40744-014-0004-527747761
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harrison M, Marra C, Shojania K, Bansback N. Societal preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015;54(10):1816–1825. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kev11325989956
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husni ME, Betts KA, Griffith J, Song Y, Ganguli A. Benefit-risk trade-offs for treatment decisions in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: focus on the patient perspective. Rheumatol Int. 2017;37(9):1423–1434. doi:10.1007/s00296-017-3760-z28623526
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huynh TK, Ostergaard A, Egsmose C, Madsen OR. Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:93–99. doi:10.2147/PPA.S5515624470758
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro-Millan I, Herrinton LJ, Chen L, Harrold L, Liu L, Curtis JR. Comparative effectiveness of etanercept and adalimumab in patient reported outcomes and injection-related tolerability. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149781. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.014978127007811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulos C, Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Turpcu A. Patients’ willingness to trade off between the duration and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(7):1008–1015. doi:10.1002/acr.2226524339373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Striesow F, Brandt A. Preference, satisfaction and usability of subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis: results of a postmarketing surveillance study with a high-concentration formulation. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2012;4(1):3–9. doi:10.1177/1759720X1143100422870490
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tłustochowicz M, Tłustochowicz W. Patients’ preferences regarding biological treatment in docros’ and patients’ opinions – the results of the RAISE* questionnaire survey. Reumatologia. 2013;51(2):113–118. doi:10.5114/reum.2013.34819
   Google Scholar
• van de Kerkhof PC, Reich K, Kavanaugh A, et al. Physician perspectives in the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: results from the population-based multinational assessment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis survey. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(10):2002–2010. doi:10.1111/jdv.1315025885420
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Xie F, Delzell E, et al. Trends in the use of biologic agents among rheumatoid arthritis patients enrolled in the US medicare program. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65(11):1743–1751. doi:10.1002/acr.2205523754804
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoffman MB, Hill D, Feldman SR. Current challenges and emerging drug delivery strategies for the treatment of psoriasis. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(10):1461–1473. doi:10.1080/17425247.2016.118880127164301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kromer C, Peitsch WK, Herr R, Schmieder A, Sonntag D, Schaarschmidt ML. Treatment preferences for biologicals in psoriasis: experienced patients appreciate sustainability. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2017;15(2):189–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kromer C, Schaarschmidt ML, Schmieder A, Herr R, Goerdt S, Peitsch WK. Patient preferences for treatment of psoriasis with biologicals: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129120. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.012912026058083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nast A, Mrowietz U, Kragballe K, et al. Barriers to the prescription of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis – a multinational cross-sectional study. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013;305(10):899–907. doi:10.1007/s00403-013-1372-323748949
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puig L, de la Cueva P, Linares M, et al. Expert report on psoriasis: spanish dermatologists’ opinions on the use of biologic agents to manage moderate to severe psoriasis in adults. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2013;104(5):400–408. doi:10.1016/j.adengl.2013.04.00323669590
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schaarschmidt ML, Kromer C, Herr R, et al. Patient preferences for biologicals in psoriasis: top priority of safety for cardiovascular patients. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144335. doi:10.1185/030079905X7486226633680
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strohal R, Prinz JC, Girolomoni G, Nast A. A patient-centred approach to biological treatment decision making for psoriasis: an expert consensus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(12):2390–2398. doi:10.1111/jdv.1324826370908
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Brenneman SK, Carter CT, et al. Patient-reported treatment satisfaction and choice of dosing frequency with biologic treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:777–784. doi:10.2147/PPA.S8577326124643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez JM, Johnson FR, McAteer H, Posner J, Mughal F. Comparing preferences for outcomes of psoriasis treatments among patients and dermatologists in the U.K.: results from a discrete-choice experiment. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(3):777–785. doi:10.1111/bjd.1479827292093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danese S, Vuitton L, Peyrin-Biroulet L. Biologic agents for IBD: practical insights. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12(9):537–545. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2015.13526284562
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim ES, Kim KO, Jang BI, et al. Factors contributing to the preference of Korean patients with Crohn’s disease when selecting an anti-tumor necrosis factor agent (CHOICE Study). Gut Liver. 2016;10(3):391–398. doi:10.5009/gnl1512626347512
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan E, Piercy J, Waller J, Black CM, Kachroo S. Assessing gastroenterologist and patient acceptance of biosimilars in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease across Germany. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175826. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.017582628410403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cebas AL, Cascajares SC, Bravo SP, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of trastuzumab: preference of HER2+ breast cancer patients and financial impact of its use. JBUON. 2016;22(2):334–339.
   Google Scholar
• Fallowfield L, Osborne S, Langridge C, Monson K, Kilkerr J, Jenkins V. Implications of subcutaneous or intravenous delivery of trastuzumab; further insight from patient interviews in the PrefHer study. Breast. 2015;24(2):166–170. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2015.01.00225623753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hechmati G, Hauber AB, Arellano J, et al. Patients’ preferences for bone metastases treatments in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(1):21–28. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2309-x24939674
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackisch C, Muller V, Dall P, et al. Subcutaneous trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer – evidence and practical experience in 7 German centers. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2015;75(6):566–573. doi:10.1055/s-0035-154617226166837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald D, Crosbie T, Christofides A, Assaily W, Wiernikowski J. A Canadian perspective on the subcutaneous administration of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Curr Oncol. 2017;24(1):33–39. doi:10.3747/co.24.347028270723
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pivot X, Gligorov J, Muller V, et al. Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(10):962–970. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70383-823965225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pivot X, Gligorov J, Muller V, et al. Patients’ preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(10):1979–1987. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu36425070545
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emkey R, Koltun W, Beusterien K, et al. Patient preference for once-monthly ibandronate versus once-weekly alendronate in a randomized, open-label, cross-over trial: the Boniva Alendronate Trial in Osteoporosis (BALTO). Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(12):1895–1903. doi:10.1185/030079905X7486216368038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sylwestrzak G, Liu J, Stephenson JJ, Ruggieri AP, DeVries A. Considering patient preferences when selecting anti-tumor necrosis factor therapeutic options. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(2):71–81.24991392
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poulos C, Kinter E, Yang JC, et al. A discrete-choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injectable multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016;9(2):95–104.27006697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Carter C, Olson WH, et al. Patient preference for dosing frequency based on prior biologic experience. J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(3):220–226.28301617
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelhorn H, Ross M, Balantac Z, et al. Analysis of social media data using qualitative methods: understanding preferences and perceptions of biologic medications among patients with severe asthma. ISPOR 23rd Annual International Meeting; 5 19-23, 2018; Baltimore, MD. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.04.1619
   Google Scholar
• Friese S, Ringmayr TG. User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 7. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi:10.1177/104973230527668716204405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant. 2002;36(4):391–409. doi:10.1023/A:1020909529486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar