Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich
{"title":"肌萎缩侧索硬化症患者对鞘内给药的偏好:在植入式给药装置和治疗性腰椎穿刺之间做出选择","authors":"Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objective</h3><p>We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture\",\"authors\":\"Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objective</h3><p>We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture
Background
Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.
Objective
We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.
Methods
A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.
Results
Participants (N = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.
Conclusion
Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.