Author
David et al 2014
Study Title
Preferences for Biologic Treatment
Characteristics among RA patients who are
current biologic therapy users
Objectives
Identify the most and least important
characteristics of RA treatment
Glen et al 2016
Treatment preferences of patients with early
rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete choice
experiment
- Measure patients’ preferences for key
outcomes of clinical trials and other issues
that are typically discussed by
rheumatologists when presenting treatment
options
- Identification of subgroup with different
treatment preferences
Preference for hypothetical RA treatment
Majority were biological naïve
-Established patient (7.2 months)
Husni et al 2017
Anthony et al 2016
Poulos et al 2014
Augustovski et al
2013
Benefit-risk trade-offs for treatment decisions
in moderate-to-severe RA: focus on patient
perspective
Mixture of both biological naïve and
experience user
Less than 5 years – 37.6%
Patient Preferences Regarding Rheumatoid
Arthritis Therapies: A conjoint Analysis
Biological naïve patient
- addition of oral tsDMARD
-Established RA patient (9.2 years)
Patients’ willingness to trade off the duration
and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis
treatments
Moderate to severe RA
Patient Preferences for Biologic Agents in
Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete-Choice
Experiment
Established RA (Median = 9)
Fraenkel et al 2004
Patient preferences for treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis
Alten et al 2016
Examining patient preferences in the
treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a
discrete-choice approach
<2 years RA – 11%
Equal users of biologics and nonbiologics therapy
Results
Efficacy of the treatment
Improves my physical abilities
Reduces pain
Potential side effects and how long treatment effect last were
neutral.
Less important – Cost and how quickly treatment works
Least Important – treatment administration, frequency and place of
treatment
Treatment benefits (increasing the chance of a major symptom
improvement and reducing the chance of serious joint damage)
were most important
50% improvement in physical function
50% reduction in RA-related pain
Route of administration
50% reduction in number of swollen joints
Frequency of administration
Serious infection
Ascertain relative patient preferences
associated with the route of administration
and other attributes of bDMARDs and
targeted sDMARDs
Route of administration
Frequency of administration
Chance of serious side effects
Monthly cost
Medication burden
Ability to reduce daily joint pain and swelling
Improvement in ability to perform daily task and activities
Quantify the rate at which RA patients are
willing to trade off between the time required
to administer treatment (duration) and
treatment frequency
Duration of treatment
Frequency of administration
Greater risk of mild/ serious side effects
Lower efficacy
To assess biological-naïve patients’
preferences for rheumatoid-arthritis
treatments with biologic agents using a
discrete-choice experiment
Cost
Systemic AEs
Frequency of administration
Efficacy
Route of administration
Local AEs
Serious Infections
Risk of adverse events
To elicit treatment preferences of patients
with rheumatoid arthritis for DMARDs with
varying risk profiles
Assess the importance of oral administration
among other treatment characteristics
differing between available second-line
DMARDs for RA patients’ preference using
BWS
Route of administration
Combination therapy
Frequency of administration
Possible side effects
Time till onset of drug effect