Patient preferences for the treatment of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract Objectives Treatments for SSc-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) differ in attributes, i.e. mode of administration, adverse events (AEs) and efficacy. As physicians and patients may perceive treatments differently, shared decision-making can be essential for optimal treatment provision. We therefore aimed to quantify patient preferences for different treatment attributes. Methods Seven SSc-ILD attributes were identified from mixed-methods research and clinician input: mode of administration, shortness of breath, skin tightness, cough, tiredness, risk of gastrointestinal AEs (GI-AEs) and risk of serious and non-serious infections. Patients with SSc-ILD completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which they were asked to repeatedly choose between two alternatives characterized by varying severity levels of the included attributes. The data were analysed using a multinomial logit model; relative attribute importance and maximum acceptable risk measures were calculated. Results Overall, 231 patients with SSc-ILD completed the DCE. Patients preferred twice-daily oral treatments and 6–12 monthly infusions. Patients’ choices were mostly influenced by the risk of GI-AEs or infections. Improvement was more important in respiratory symptoms than in skin tightness. Concerning trade-offs, patients accepted different levels of increase in GI-AE risk: +21% if it reduced the infusions’ frequency; +15% if changing to an oral treatment; up to +37% if it improved breathlessness; and up to +36% if it reduced the risk of infections. Conclusions This is the first study to quantitatively elicit patients’ preferences for treatment attributes in SSc-ILD. Patients showed willingness to make trade-offs, providing a firm basis for shared decision-making in clinical practice.

[1]  J. V. van Laar,et al.  Information preferences about treatment options in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: A Delphi consensus study , 2021, Journal of scleroderma and related disorders.

[2]  M. Moradzadeh,et al.  Efficacy and safety of rituximab therapy in patients with systemic sclerosis disease (SSc): systematic review and meta-analysis , 2021, Clinical Rheumatology.

[3]  W. Wuyts,et al.  Identifying unmet needs in SSc-ILD by semi-qualitative in-depth interviews , 2021, Rheumatology.

[4]  J. V. van Laar,et al.  Autologous stem-cell transplantation in systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: early action in selected patients rather than escalation therapy for all , 2021, Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease.

[5]  D. Furst,et al.  Patient preferences for systemic sclerosis treatment: A descriptive study within an Italian cohort , 2020, Journal of scleroderma and related disorders.

[6]  J. Goldin,et al.  Tocilizumab in systemic sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. , 2020, The Lancet. Respiratory medicine.

[7]  D. Furst,et al.  Intravenous versus oral cyclophosphamide for lung and/or skin fibrosis in systemic sclerosis: an indirect comparison from EUSTAR and randomised controlled trials. , 2020, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[8]  M. Kreuter,et al.  The need for a holistic approach for SSc-ILD – achievements and ambiguity in a devastating disease , 2020, Respiratory Research.

[9]  S. Birring,et al.  ILD-specific health-related quality of life in systemic sclerosis-associated ILD compared with IPF , 2020, BMJ open respiratory research.

[10]  C. Denton,et al.  Treatment of systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease: Lessons from clinical trials , 2020, Journal of scleroderma and related disorders.

[11]  C. Denton,et al.  Pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease , 2020, Journal of scleroderma and related disorders.

[12]  V. Steen,et al.  Patient and Physician Perspectives on Systemic Sclerosis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease , 2020, Clinical medicine insights. Circulatory, respiratory and pulmonary medicine.

[13]  M. Scholand,et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures in systemic sclerosis–related interstitial lung disease for clinical practice and clinical trials , 2020, Journal of scleroderma and related disorders.

[14]  B. Griffiths,et al.  The identification and management of interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis: evidence-based European consensus statements. , 2020, The Lancet. Rheumatology.

[15]  D. Huscher,et al.  Outcomes of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis patients: Results on more than 12,000 patients from the EUSTAR database. , 2019, Autoimmunity reviews.

[16]  J. D. de Vries-Bouwstra,et al.  Treatment decision-making in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a patient’s perspective , 2019, Rheumatology.

[17]  F Reed Johnson,et al.  The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  Kevin K. Brown,et al.  Interstitial lung disease associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc-ILD) , 2019, Respiratory Research.

[19]  Alan R. Ellis,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[20]  P. Wiland,et al.  Interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis: challenges in early diagnosis and management , 2018, Reumatologia.

[21]  D. Huscher,et al.  Systemic sclerosis associated interstitial lung disease - individualized immunosuppressive therapy and course of lung function: results of the EUSTAR group , 2018, Arthritis Research & Therapy.

[22]  Peter Vickerman,et al.  How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity , 2018, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[23]  M. Boubaya,et al.  Mapping and predicting mortality from systemic sclerosis , 2017, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[24]  D. Tashkin,et al.  Treatment of Systemic Sclerosis-related Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review of Existing and Emerging Therapies. , 2016, Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

[25]  D. Jayne,et al.  SUMMARY OF PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS , 2014 .

[26]  Lisa A Prosser,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[27]  D. Furst,et al.  Update of EULAR recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis , 2015, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[28]  Ami A. Shah,et al.  Patient Perspectives in OMERACT Provide an Anchor for Future Metric Development and Improved Approaches to Healthcare Delivery in Connective Tissue Disease Related Interstitial Lung Disease (CTD-ILD). , 2015, Current respiratory medicine reviews.

[29]  Sindhu R. Johnson,et al.  Safety and Effectiveness of Mycophenolate in Systemic Sclerosis. A Systematic Review , 2015, PloS one.

[30]  B. Griffiths,et al.  Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation vs intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. , 2014, JAMA.

[31]  V. Strand,et al.  Reconciling Healthcare Professional and Patient Perspectives in the Development of Disease Activity and Response Criteria in Connective Tissue Disease–related Interstitial Lung Diseases , 2014, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[32]  Matthias Nübling,et al.  Patient preferences for HIV/AIDS therapy - a discrete choice experiment , 2013, Health Economics Review.

[33]  D. Furst,et al.  Annual Medical Costs and Healthcare Resource Use in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis in an Insured Population , 2012, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[34]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[35]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay , 2010 .

[36]  C. Denton,et al.  Evidence-based management of rapidly progressing systemic sclerosis. , 2010, Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology.

[37]  Michiel C.J. Bliemer,et al.  Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs , 2009 .

[38]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. , 2009, Health economics.

[39]  R. Hornung,et al.  Health values of patients with systemic sclerosis. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[40]  Charlie Strange,et al.  Cyclophosphamide versus placebo in scleroderma lung disease. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  C. Manski The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[42]  Morten Raun Mørkbak,et al.  The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments , 2012 .

[43]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .