Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Headache Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1111/head.14781
Joanna K Bougie, Kathryn Krupsky, Kathleen Beusterien, Marie-Pier Ladouceur, Emily Mulvihill
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大成年人偏头痛预防性治疗的患者偏好:离散选择实验。
目的评估加拿大偏头痛患者对注射或输液预防性偏头痛治疗关键属性的偏好,并评估偏好的异质性:背景:目前预防偏头痛的治疗方案在给药方式、疗效和给药频率等属性方面各不相同;不同患者对这些属性的偏好也不尽相同。随着新疗法的出现,有必要提供证据证明患者对注射或输液预防偏头痛治疗的偏好:方法:自我报告确诊为偏头痛的加拿大成年人完成了一项基于互联网的横断面调查,其中包括一项离散选择实验。调查向参与者展示了偏头痛预防性疗法的特性,包括起效速度、疗效持久性、给药方式、给药环境和给药频率。调查采用潜类分析法(LCA)来识别在治疗偏好方面存在差异的患者亚群:共有 200 名参与者完成了调查。参与者的治疗偏好对疗效持久性从 "下次服药前 2 周消失 "到 "下次服药前不消失 "的改善最为敏感(权重的绝对差异 = |-0.95 到 1.07| = 2.参与者同样倾向于自行注射和由医疗保健提供者静脉注射(平均权重分别为 0.58 和 0.47),而不是颅内注射(平均权重=-1.04)。根据 LCA 确定了三个亚组:第一组(n = 103)优先考虑速效和持久疗法,第二组(n = 54)对颅内注射表示反感,第三组(n = 43)倾向于在医疗机构进行治疗:在这个加拿大成人偏头痛患者样本中,我们发现疗效的持久性和给药方式是影响患者对偏头痛预防性治疗偏好的关键因素;然而,某些患者群体在治疗优先级上可能有所不同。我们的研究结果突出表明,在选择偏头痛预防性治疗方法时,患者和医疗服务提供者有必要就治疗属性进行讨论,并考虑患者的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Headache
Headache 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Headaches in Sjogren's disease: A narrative review. Occipital neuralgia as an initial manifestation of atypical Lemierre syndrome: A case report. Safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine in participants taking atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: Results from the TANDEM study. Anxiety, depression, and headache-related disability in a large pediatric clinic-based sample. Associations of comorbid headache disorders and depression with leisure-time physical activity among 14,088 adults in The Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1