Clinicians' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment.

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1007/s41669-024-00510-w
Alexander Keenan, Chiara Whichello, Hoa H Le, David M Kern, Gabriela S Fernandez, Vicky Turner, Anup Das, Matt Quaife, Amy Perrin Ross
{"title":"Clinicians' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment.","authors":"Alexander Keenan, Chiara Whichello, Hoa H Le, David M Kern, Gabriela S Fernandez, Vicky Turner, Anup Das, Matt Quaife, Amy Perrin Ross","doi":"10.1007/s41669-024-00510-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Four sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators are currently available in the USA for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). These S1PR modulators have similar efficacy. Clinicians may therefore consider other factors, such as clinical management considerations, when distinguishing among treatments. This study estimated which S1PR modulator clinicians would choose on the basis of a treatment's clinical management and quantified how individual aspects of clinical management might drive this choice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was conducted on the basis of clinical management preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and real-world clinical management profiles of the S1PR modulators currently available to treat relapsing forms of MS (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, siponimod). The DCE was completed by neurologists in the USA experienced in treating MS and included eight clinical management attributes: first-dose observations, genotyping, liver function tests, eye exams, drug-drug interactions, interactions with antidepressants, interactions with foods high in tyramine, and immune system recovery time. Attribute levels were selected on the basis of S1PR modulator product labels. In the MCDA, partial MCDA scores were created for each attribute and summed to produce an overall MCDA score for each S1PR modulator.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The DCE was completed by 200 neurologists. The overall MCDA score was highest for ponesimod (4.78 points), followed by siponimod (4.10 points), fingolimod (3.61 points), and ozanimod (2.38 points). Having fewer drug-drug interactions contributed most to the overall scores (up to 1.56 points), followed by having no first-dose observations (0.95 points), the shortest immune system recovery time (0.94 points), and not interacting with foods high in tyramine (0.86 points).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When considering clinical management convenience, the average US-based neurologist treating MS is likely to choose ponesimod over siponimod, fingolimod, or ozanimod. The strongest driver of preferences was the number of drug-drug interactions. This information can help inform recommendations for the treatment of MS and facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499474/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00510-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Four sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators are currently available in the USA for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). These S1PR modulators have similar efficacy. Clinicians may therefore consider other factors, such as clinical management considerations, when distinguishing among treatments. This study estimated which S1PR modulator clinicians would choose on the basis of a treatment's clinical management and quantified how individual aspects of clinical management might drive this choice.

Methods: A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was conducted on the basis of clinical management preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and real-world clinical management profiles of the S1PR modulators currently available to treat relapsing forms of MS (fingolimod, ozanimod, ponesimod, siponimod). The DCE was completed by neurologists in the USA experienced in treating MS and included eight clinical management attributes: first-dose observations, genotyping, liver function tests, eye exams, drug-drug interactions, interactions with antidepressants, interactions with foods high in tyramine, and immune system recovery time. Attribute levels were selected on the basis of S1PR modulator product labels. In the MCDA, partial MCDA scores were created for each attribute and summed to produce an overall MCDA score for each S1PR modulator.

Results: The DCE was completed by 200 neurologists. The overall MCDA score was highest for ponesimod (4.78 points), followed by siponimod (4.10 points), fingolimod (3.61 points), and ozanimod (2.38 points). Having fewer drug-drug interactions contributed most to the overall scores (up to 1.56 points), followed by having no first-dose observations (0.95 points), the shortest immune system recovery time (0.94 points), and not interacting with foods high in tyramine (0.86 points).

Conclusion: When considering clinical management convenience, the average US-based neurologist treating MS is likely to choose ponesimod over siponimod, fingolimod, or ozanimod. The strongest driver of preferences was the number of drug-drug interactions. This information can help inform recommendations for the treatment of MS and facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

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
基于临床管理的考虑,临床医生对多发性硬化症鞘磷脂-1-磷酸受体调节剂的偏好:选择实验。
背景:目前,美国有四种鞘氨醇-1-磷酸受体(S1PR)调节剂可用于治疗复发性多发性硬化症(MS)。这些 S1PR 调节剂具有相似的疗效。因此,临床医生在区分治疗方法时可能会考虑其他因素,如临床管理因素。本研究估算了临床医生会根据治疗的临床管理选择哪种 S1PR 调节剂,并量化了临床管理的各个环节可能如何驱动这种选择:方法:根据离散选择实验(DCE)中得出的临床管理偏好以及目前可用来治疗复发性多发性硬化症的 S1PR 调节剂(芬戈莫德、奥扎莫德、泊尼莫德、西泊尼莫德)的实际临床管理情况,进行了多标准决策分析(MCDA)。DCE 由美国治疗多发性硬化症经验丰富的神经科医生完成,包括八项临床管理属性:首次剂量观察、基因分型、肝功能检测、眼科检查、药物间相互作用、与抗抑郁药的相互作用、与酪胺含量高的食物的相互作用以及免疫系统恢复时间。属性水平根据 S1PR 调节剂产品标签进行选择。在 MCDA 中,为每个属性创建部分 MCDA 分数,然后求和,得出每个 S1PR 调节剂的 MCDA 总分:结果:200 名神经科医生完成了 DCE。波奈莫德的 MCDA 总分最高(4.78 分),其次是西波尼莫德(4.10 分)、芬戈莫德(3.61 分)和奥扎尼莫德(2.38 分)。药物间相互作用较少对总分贡献最大(高达 1.56 分),其次是无首次剂量观察(0.95 分)、免疫系统恢复时间最短(0.94 分)以及不与酪胺含量高的食物发生相互作用(0.86 分):考虑到临床管理的便利性,美国治疗多发性硬化症的普通神经科医生可能会选择波奈莫德,而不是西泊尼莫德、芬戈莫德或奥扎尼莫德。药物间相互作用的数量是影响偏好的最大因素。这些信息有助于为多发性硬化症的治疗提供建议,并促进临床医生和患者共同做出决策。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Costs of Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with First-Line Treatment. Digital Versus Paper-Based Consent from the UK NHS Perspective: A Micro-costing Analysis. Correction: Cost-Effectiveness of Dupilumab and Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Singapore. Publisher Correction: Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison Between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses. Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.
×
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