{"title":"Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Joanna K Bougie, Kathryn Krupsky, Kathleen Beusterien, Marie-Pier Ladouceur, Emily Mulvihill","doi":"10.1111/head.14781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Canadian adults self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross-sectional, internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants' treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from \"wears off 2 weeks before next dose\" to \"does not wear off before the next dose\" (absolute difference in weights = |-0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from \"cranial injections\" to \"intravenous infusions\" (|-1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self-injection and intravenous infusion from a health-care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = -1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one (n = 103) prioritized fast-acting and durable therapies, group two (n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three (n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health-care provider setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of administration are key attributes influencing patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments; however, certain groups of patients may differ in their treatment priorities. Our results highlight the need for patient-provider discussions regarding treatment attributes and consideration of patients' preferences when selecting a preventive migraine treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12844,"journal":{"name":"Headache","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14781","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine.
Background: Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary.
Methods: Canadian adults self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross-sectional, internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences.
Results: In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants' treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from "wears off 2 weeks before next dose" to "does not wear off before the next dose" (absolute difference in weights = |-0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from "cranial injections" to "intravenous infusions" (|-1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self-injection and intravenous infusion from a health-care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = -1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one (n = 103) prioritized fast-acting and durable therapies, group two (n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three (n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health-care provider setting.
Conclusions: In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of administration are key attributes influencing patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments; however, certain groups of patients may differ in their treatment priorities. Our results highlight the need for patient-provider discussions regarding treatment attributes and consideration of patients' preferences when selecting a preventive migraine treatment.
期刊介绍:
Headache publishes original articles on all aspects of head and face pain including communications on clinical and basic research, diagnosis and management, epidemiology, genetics, and pathophysiology of primary and secondary headaches, cranial neuralgias, and pains referred to the head and face. Monthly issues feature case reports, short communications, review articles, letters to the editor, and news items regarding AHS plus medicolegal and socioeconomic aspects of head pain. This is the official journal of the American Headache Society.