Patient and Neurologist Preferences in the United States for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatments: Findings from a Discrete Choice Experiment

References

• Lee J, Dunn J. Mobility concerns in multiple sclerosis—studies and surveys on US patient populations of relevance to nurses. US Neurol. 2013;9(1):17. doi:10.17925/USN.2013.09.01.17
   Google Scholar
• Feigin VL, Nichols E, Alam T. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(5):459–480. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30499-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The prevalence of MS in the United States: a population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;93(15):688. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000007915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antao L, Shaw L, Ollson K, et al. Chronic pain in episodic illness and its influence on work occupations: a scoping review. Work. 2013;44(1):11–36. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-01559
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schapiro R. Managing the Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis. 5th ed. New York: Demos Medical Publishing; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper K. Managing progressive MS. National MS society; 2018. Available from: https://www.nationalmssociety.org/NationalMSSociety/media/MSNationalFiles/Brochures/Brochure_Managing_Progressive_MS.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA, et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90(17):777–788. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000005347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran JQ, Hartung JP, Peach RJ, et al. Results from the first-in-human study with ozanimod, a novel, selective sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator. J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;57(8):988–996. doi:10.1002/jcph.887
   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(Suppl 1):S5–S48. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2016.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bermel RA, Bakshi R. The measurement and clinical relevance of brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5(2):158–170. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70349-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eshaghi A, Prados F, Brownlee WJ, et al. Deep gray matter volume loss drives disability worsening in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(2):210–222. doi:10.1002/ana.25145
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radue EW, Barkhof F, Kappos L, et al. Correlation between brain volume loss and clinical and MRI outcomes in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2015;84(8):784–793. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roosendaal SD, Bendfeldt K, Vrenken H, et al. Grey matter volume in a large cohort of MS patients: relation to MRI parameters and disability. Mult Scler. 2011;17(9):1098–1106. doi:10.1177/1352458511404916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minagar A, Barnett MH, Benedict RH, et al. The thalamus and multiple sclerosis: modern views on pathologic, imaging, and clinical aspects. Neurology. 2013;80(2):210–219. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827b910b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacques FH. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology. 2015;84(9):963. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000462309.76486.c5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tedeholm H, Lycke J, Skoog B, et al. Time to secondary progression in patients with multiple sclerosis who were treated with first generation immunomodulating drugs. Mult Scler. 2013;19(6):765–774. doi:10.1177/1352458512463764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen JA, Comi G, Selmaj KW, et al. Ozanimod vs interferon β-1a: clinical and MRI results of RADIANCE part B - a 2-year phase 3 trial in relapsing multiple sclerosis [abstract 280]. Mult Scler J. 2017;23(3 Suppl):981–982.
   Google Scholar
• De Stefano N, Silva DG, Barnett MH. Effect of fingolimod on brain volume loss in patients with multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs. 2017;31(4):289–305. doi:10.1007/s40263-017-0415-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan O, Bao F, Shah M, et al. Effect of disease-modifying therapies on brain volume in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a five-year brain MRI study. J Neurol Sci. 2012;312(1–2):7–12. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2011.08.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zivadinov R, Dwyer MG, Carl E, Thangavelu K, Cavalier S, Bergsland N. Evaluating the effect of teriflunomide on whole brain atrophy in the phase 3 TOPIC study [abstract P870]. Paper presented at: 2018 ECTRIMS; Berlin, Germany; October 10-12, 2018.
   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
• Visser LA, Louapre C, Uyl-de Groot CA, Redekop WK. Patient needs and preferences in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;39:101929. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2020.101929
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb EJD, Meads D, Eskyte I, et al. A systematic review of discrete-choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies in people with multiple sclerosis. Patient. 2018;11(4):391–402. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0296-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mansfield C, Thomas N, Gebben D, Lucas M, Hauber AB. 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
• Poulos C, Wakeford C, Kinter E, Mange B, Schenk T, Jhaveri M. 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
• Tullman MJ. A review of current and emerging therapeutic strategies in multiple sclerosis. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(2 Suppl):S21–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tencer T, Will O, Nguyen J, Cambron-Mellott MJ, Berk A, Beusterien K. Neurologist and patient preferences in multiple sclerosis: UK and US qualitative research findings [abstract PND107]. Value Health. 2019;22(3):S757. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.1877
   Google Scholar
• AVONEX (Interferon Beta-1a) Injection [Package Insert]. Cambridge, MA: Biogen; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• AUBAGIO (Teriflunomide) Tablets [Package Insert]. Cambridge, MA: Genzyme Corporation; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• REBIF (Interferon Beta-1a) [Package Insert]. Rockland, MA: EMD Serono; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):255–265. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32517-X
   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.e218. doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.12.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TYSABRI (Natalizumab) Injection [Package Insert on the Internet]. Cambridge, MA: Biogen; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• COPAXONE (Glatiramer Acetate Injection) [Package Insert]. Parsippany, NJ: Teva; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Novartis. Efficacy and safety of fingolimod in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (FREEDOMS); 2012. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00289978. Accessed May 31, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D. 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz R. [Stress and depression are not causes of cancer]. Strahlenther Onkol. 1996;172(11):632–633. German.
   Google Scholar
• Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R, Myers LW, Ellison GW. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 1995;4(3):187–206. doi:10.1007/BF02260859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz CE, Coulthard-Morris L, Zeng Q, Retzlaff P. Measuring self-efficacy in people with multiple sclerosis: a validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(4):398. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(96)90091-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu CY, Motl RW. Further validation of the Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy Scale. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(26):2429–2438. doi:10.3109/09638288.2015.1021022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu FX, Witt EA, Ebbinghaus S, et al. Patient and oncologist preferences for attributes of treatments in advanced melanoma: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1389–1399. doi:10.2147/PPA.S140226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heisen M, Baeten SA, Verheggen BG, et al. Patient and physician preferences for oral pharmacotherapy for overactive bladder: two discrete choice experiments. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(4):787–796. doi:10.1185/03007995.2016.1142959
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolt T, Kobayashi H, Mahlich J. Patient and physician preferences for therapy characteristics for psoriasis: a discrete choice experiment in Japan. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019;3(2):255–264. doi:10.1007/s41669-018-0104-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost N, Freeman J, Brixner D, Mort J, Clem J, Ngorsuraches S. Patients’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for disease-modifying therapies. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;35:55–60. doi:10.1016/j.msard.2019.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Van Houtven G, Ozdemir S, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554–562. doi:10.1007/s00415-009-0084-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson L, Loucks A, Bui C, et al. Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices. J Neurol Sci. 2014;344(1–2):80–87. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2014.06.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horakova D, Kalincik T, Dusankova JB, Dolezal O. Clinical correlates of grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:10. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-12-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popescu BF, Lucchinetti CF. Meningeal and cortical grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:11. doi:10.1186/1471-2377-12-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield C, Gebben DJ, Sutphin J, et al. Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments: a discrete-choice experiment. Headache. 2019;59(5):715–726. doi:10.1111/head.13498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulos C, Kinter E, Yang JC, Bridges JF, Posner J, Reder AT. Patient preferences for injectable treatments for multiple sclerosis in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2016;9(2):171–180. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0136-x
   PubMedGoogle 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. doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2013-053
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown H, Gabriele S, White J. Physician and patient treatment decision-making in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Europe and the USA. Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2018;8(6):371–376. doi:10.2217/nmt-2018-0023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer B, Brockmeier B, Devonshire V, Charbonne A, Wach D, Hendin B. 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
• Heesen C, Kleiter I, Nguyen F, et al. Risk perception in natalizumab-treated multiple sclerosis patients and their neurologists. Mult Scler. 2010;16(12):1507–1512. doi:10.1177/1352458510379819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association of American Medical Colleges. Active physicians by age and specialty; 2017. Physician Specialty Data Report. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/interactive-data/active-physicians-age-and-specialty-2017. Accessed: November 20, 2020.
   Google Scholar