Patient Preferences for Treating “OFF” Episodes in Parkinson’s Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment

References

• Olanow CW, Stern MB, Sethi K. The scientific and clinical basis for the treatment of Parkinson disease (2009). Neurology. 2009;72(21 suppl 4):S1–S136. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a1d44c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marras C, Beck JC, Bower JH, et al. Prevalence of Parkinson’s disease across North America. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018;4:21. doi:10.1038/s41531-018-0058-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong MJ, Okun MS. Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: a review. JAMA. 2020;323(6):548–560. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.22360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titova N, Chaudhuri KR. Personalized medicine in Parkinson’s disease: time to be precise. Mov Disord. 2017;32(8):1147–1154. doi:10.1002/mds.27027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlskog JE, Muenter MD. Frequency of levodopa-related dyskinesias and motor fluctuations as estimated from the cumulative literature. Mov Disord. 2001;16(3):448–458. doi:10.1002/mds.1090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou KL, Stacy M, Simuni T, et al. The spectrum of “off” in Parkinson’s disease: what have we learned over 40 years? Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2018;51:9–16. doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahwa R, Stacy MA, Factor SA, et al. Ropinirole 24-hour prolonged release: randomized, controlled study in advanced Parkinson disease. Neurology. 2007;68(14):1108–1115. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000258660.74391.c1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman A, Ranhosky A, Korts D. Clinical evaluation of pramipexole in advanced Parkinson’s disease: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Neurology. 1997;49(1):162–168. doi:10.1212/WNL.49.1.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters CH, Sethi KD, Hauser RA, Molho E, Bertoni JM; Zydis Selegiline Study Group. Zydis selegiline reduces off time in Parkinson’s disease patients with motor fluctuations: a 3-month, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Mov Disord. 2004;19(4):426–432. doi:10.1002/mds.20036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rascol O, Brooks DJ, Melamed E, et al. Rasagiline as an adjunct to levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease and motor fluctuations (LARGO, Lasting effect in Adjunct therapy with Rasagiline Given Once daily, study): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9463):947–954. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71083-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajput AH, Martin W, Saint-Hilaire MH, Dorflinger E, Pedder S. Tolcapone improves motor function in parkinsonian patients with the “wearing-off” phenomenon: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Neurology. 1997;49(4):1066–1071. doi:10.1212/WNL.49.4.1066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmer LW, Juncos JL, Singer C, et al. Pooled analyses of phase III studies of ADS-5102 (amantadine) extended-release capsules for dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(4):387–398. doi:10.1007/s40263-018-0498-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser RA, Hsu A, Kell S, et al. Extended-release carbidopa-levodopa (IPX066) compared with immediate-release carbidopa-levodopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease and motor fluctuations: a phase 3 randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12(4):346–356. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70025-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeWitt PA, Guttman M, Tetrud JW, et al. Adenosine A2A receptor antagonist istradefylline (KW-6002) reduces “off” time in Parkinson’s disease: a double-blind, randomized, multicenter clinical trial (6002-US-005). Ann Neurol. 2008;63(3):295–302. doi:10.1002/ana.21315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vijiaratnam N, Foltynie T. Therapeutic strategies to treat or prevent off episodes in adults with Parkinson’s disease. Drugs. 2020;80(8):775–796. doi:10.1007/s40265-020-01310-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapuis S, Ouchchane L, Metz O, Gerbaud L, Durif F. Impact of the motor complications of Parkinson’s disease on the quality of life. Mov Disord. 2005;20(2):224–230. doi:10.1002/mds.20279
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• APOKYN® (apomorphine hydrochloride injection) [prescribing information]. Louisville, KY: US WorldMeds, LLC; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• INBRIJA® (levodopa inhalation powder) [prescribing information]. Ardsley, NY: Acorda Therapeutics, Inc; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• KYNMOBI® (apomorphine hydrochloride) sublingual film [prescribing information]. Marlborough, MA: Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Marketing Res. 1994;31(4):545–557. doi:10.1177/002224379403100408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld WF. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
   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
• Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Train K, Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworks. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2005:117–134.
   Google Scholar
• Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28(4):894–901. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall T, Pugh A, Fairchild A, Hass S. Patient preferences for device-aided treatments indicated for advanced Parkinson disease. Value Health. 2017;20(10):1383–1393. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr C, Lloyd EJ, Kosmas CE, et al. Health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s: impact of ‘off’ time and stated treatment preferences. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1505–1515. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1187-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhidayasiri R, Chaudhuri KR, LeWitt P, Martin A, Boonpang K, van Laar T. Effective delivery of apomorphine in the management of Parkinson disease: practical considerations for clinicians and Parkinson nurses. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2015;38(3):89–103. doi:10.1097/WNF.0000000000000082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowron A. Practical considerations in the use of apomorphine injectable. Neurology. 2004;62(suppl 4):S32–S36. doi:10.1212/WNL.62.6_suppl_4.S32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manson AJ, Turner K, Lees AJ. Apomorphine monotherapy in the treatment of refractory motor complications of Parkinson’s disease: long-term follow-up study of 64 patients. Mov Disord. 2002;17(6):1235–1241. doi:10.1002/mds.10281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Bliemer MCJ, Veldwijk J, Swait JD. Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? Soc Sci Med. 2020;246:112736. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eijndhoven E, Brauer M, Kee R, et al. Modeling the impact of patient treatment preference on health outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2020;23(5):474–483. doi:10.1080/13696998.2019.1711100
   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