| Title |
Understanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s92985 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shraddha S Chaugule, Joel W Hay, Guy Young |
| Abstract |
Despite clearly improved clinical outcomes for prophylaxis compared to on-demand therapy, on average only 56% of patients diagnosed with severe hemophilia receive prophylactic factor replacement therapy in the US. Prophylaxis rates generally drop as patients transition from childhood to adulthood, partly due to patients becoming less adherent when they reach adulthood. Assessment of patient preferences is important because these are likely to translate into increased treatment satisfaction and adherence. In this study, we assessed preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for on-demand, prophylaxis, and longer acting prophylaxis therapies in a sample of US hemophilia patients. Adult US hemophilia patients and caregivers (N=79) completed a discrete-choice survey that presented a series of trade-off questions, each including a pair of hypothetical treatment profiles. Using a mixed logit model for analysis, we compared the relative importance of five treatment characteristics: 1) out-of-pocket treatment costs (paid by patients), 2) factor dose adjustment, 3) treatment side effects, 4) availability of premixed factor, and 5) treatment effectiveness and dosing frequency. Based on these attribute estimates, we calculated patients' WTP. Out-of-pocket treatment costs (P<0.001), side effects (P<0.001), and treatment effectiveness and dosing frequency (P<0.001) were found to be statistically significant in the model. Patients were willing to pay US $410 (95% confidence interval: $164-$656) out of pocket per month for thrice-weekly prophylaxis therapy compared to on-demand therapy and $360 (95% confidence interval: $145-$575) for a switch from thrice-weekly to once-weekly prophylaxis therapy. Improvements in treatment effectiveness and dosing frequency, treatment side effects, and out-of-pocket costs per month were the greatest determinants of hemophilia treatment choice and WTP. The positive preferences and WTP for longer acting prophylactic therapies suggest that the uptake is likely to increase adherence, improving treatment outcomes. These preferences should also inform the Food and Drug Administration's assessment of new longer acting hemophilia therapies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 18% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#864
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,775
of 294,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#21
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 294,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.