Patient preferences for characteristics differentiating ovarian stimulation treatments.

BACKGROUND Little is known concerning patient preferences for IVF treatments. The objective of this study was to elicit patient preferences for characteristics differentiating ovarian stimulation treatments. METHODS Women undergoing IVF were recruited from six clinics in Sweden between May 2010 and December 2010. Included patients completed a study questionnaire consisting of one contingent valuation (CV) question (with six different bids) and 16 conjoint analysis (CA) questions formulated as discrete choices between two hypothetical ovarian stimulation treatments (defined in terms of manufacturing method, method of administration, time required for administration, dose variability and hypothetical price). Patient preferences were derived using multinomial logit modelling. RESULTS The final study population consisted of 294 women (mean age of 35). Respondents were willing to pay €360 [95% confidence interval (CI): €340-€390] to receive FSH derived from DNA technology instead of highly purified extract from urine from post-menopausal women, €300 (95% CI: €280-€320) to administer the FSH using a prefilled injection pen instead of a conventional syringe, €30 (95% CI: €20-€40) per saved minute required for administration and €530 (95% CI: €500-€570) to reduce the dose variability from 10-20% to 1-2% (P< 0.001 for all estimates). The result from the CV was similar to the CA. CONCLUSIONS Women undergoing IVF place significant value on characteristics differentiating ovarian stimulation treatments. Product-specific aspects should be taken into account by decision-makers when discriminating between commercial gonadotrophins in clinical practice to align health-care decision-making with patient preferences and potentially improve the effectiveness of IVF interventions through enhanced patient satisfaction and treatment compliance. Preferences for treatment characteristics should also be considered in evaluations of ovarian stimulation products to capture their true value from a patient perspective.

[1]  Bengt Kriström,et al.  A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. , 1990 .

[2]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  C. Howles.  Role of LH and FSH in ovarian function , 2000, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology.

[4]  Cleve E. Willis,et al.  Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management , 2000 .

[5]  H. Tournaye,et al.  An open, randomized single-centre study to compare the efficacy and convenience of follitropin beta administered by a pen device with follitropin alpha administered by a conventional syringe in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[6]  S. Steelman,et al.  Assay of the follicle stimulating hormone based on the augmentation with human chorionic gonadotropin. , 1953, Endocrinology.

[7]  B. Orme.  Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research , 2005 .

[8]  S. Daya.  Methodologic pitfalls in assessing the efficacy of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin in assisted reproduction. , 2003, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  M. Eijkemans,et al.  Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[10]  T. Čabrijan,et al.  Patient acceptance and reliability of new Humulin/Humalog 3.0 ml prefilled insulin pen in ten Croatian diabetes centres. , 2002, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[11]  M. Ryan.  Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[12]  J. Bennett,et al.  Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation , 2008 .

[13]  A. van Dorsselaer,et al.  Analytical identification of additional impurities in urinary-derived gonadotrophins. , 2009, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[14]  S H Kaplan,et al.  Patients' participation in medical care: effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. , 1988, Journal of general internal medicine.

[15]  K. Jensen,et al.  A Review of 25 Years’ Experience with the NovoPen® Family of Insulin Pens in the Management of Diabetes Mellitus , 2010, Clinical drug investigation.

[16]  M. Rajkhowa,et al.  Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. , 2006, Human reproduction.

[17]  N J Bohannon,et al.  Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. , 1999, Postgraduate medicine.

[18]  A. Furnham,et al.  A literature review of the anchoring effect , 2011 .

[19]  T Klose,et al.  The contingent valuation method in health care. , 1999, Health policy.

[20]  G. Baer,et al.  Quantification of follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa): is in vivo bioassay still relevant in the recombinant age? , 2003, Current medical research and opinion.

[21]  Z. Rosenwaks,et al.  Improvement in consistency of response to ovarian stimulation with recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone resulting from a new method for calibrating the therapeutic preparation. , 2003, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[22]  G. Albrektsen,et al.  Quality of Life, Perceived Difficulties in Adherence to a Diabetes Regimen, and Blood Glucose Control , 1991, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[23]  B. Lunenfeld,et al.  Ovarian stimulation: from basic science to clinical application. , 2002, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[24]  I. Kwan,et al.  Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[25]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[27]  N. Weiss,et al.  Gonadotrophin products: empowering patients to choose the product that meets their needs. , 2007, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[28]  A. Kadiri,et al.  Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents. , 1998, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[29]  C. Givens,et al.  Administration of recombinant human FSH (solution in cartridge) with a pen device in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. , 2003, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[30]  P. Lehert,et al.  Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone produces more oocytes with a lower total dose per cycle in assisted reproductive technologies compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: a meta-analysis , 2010, Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E.

[31]  M. R. Graff,et al.  Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. , 1998, Clinical therapeutics.

[32]  B. Lunenfeld.  Historical perspectives in gonadotrophin therapy. , 2004, Human reproduction update.