Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs: A conjoint analysis

To understand the relative importance of the outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and the willingness of patients with epilepsy to accept therapeutic trade-offs between seizure control and tolerability, we administered a Web-enabled, choice-format conjoint survey to patients with a self-reported physician diagnosis of epilepsy and symptoms of partial seizures. Patients answered nine choice questions to evaluate treatment outcomes of two different hypothetical add-on AEDs. Patients were first asked to choose the better of the two medicines and then asked a follow-up question about whether or not they would add the selected AED to their current treatment regimen. Our study demonstrated that patients with epilepsy consider seizure reduction to be the top priority when ranking it against the reduction or elimination of side effects. This study aids in better understanding of patients' AED treatment preferences and may aid in management of epilepsy.

[1]  M. Ryan,et al.  Valuing the benefits of weight loss programs: an application of the discrete choice experiment. , 2004, Obesity research.

[2]  Elizabeth T. Kinter,et al.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients , 2008, The patient.

[3]  F Reed Johnson,et al.  Crohn's disease patients' risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. , 2007, Gastroenterology.

[4]  E. Perucca,et al.  Adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs , 2005, Acta neurologica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[5]  R. Fisher,et al.  The impact of epilepsy from the patient’s perspective II: views about therapy and health care , 2000, Epilepsy Research.

[6]  M. Brodie,et al.  The Star Systems , 2001 .

[7]  J. Asconapé.  The selection of antiepileptic drugs for the treatment of epilepsy in children and adults. , 2010, Neurologic clinics.

[8]  F. Johnson,et al.  Valuing morbidity: an integration of the willingness-to-pay and health-status index literatures. , 1997, Journal of health economics.

[9]  F. Johnson,et al.  Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[10]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. , 1997, Health economics.

[11]  B. Bourgeois,et al.  Efficacy and Tolerability of the New Antiepileptic Drugs, II: Treatment of Refractory Epilepsy. Report of the TTA and QSS Subcommittees of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society , 2004 .

[12]  F. Johnson,et al.  Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. , 2000, Health economics.

[13]  L. Andrews,et al.  A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services , 2006, British Journal of Cancer.

[14]  Howard Fillit,et al.  Older Americans' Risk-benefit Preferences for Modifying the Course of Alzheimer Disease , 2009, Alzheimer disease and associated disorders.

[15]  B. Bourgeois,et al.  Efficacy and Tolerability of the New Antiepileptic Drugs, I: Treatment of New‐Onset Epilepsy: Report of the TTA and QSS Subcommittees of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society , 2004, Epilepsia.

[16]  J Coast,et al.  Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation , 2006, The British journal of dermatology.

[17]  Philippe Cattin,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: An Update , 1989 .

[18]  C Chen,et al.  Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. , 2004, British journal of anaesthesia.

[19]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[20]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare , 2002, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[21]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

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

[23]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[24]  E. McIntosh,et al.  The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[25]  F. Johnson,et al.  Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. , 2005, Diabetes care.

[26]  Kathryn A Phillips,et al.  Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. , 2002, Health services research.

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

[28]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs , 1997 .

[29]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[30]  N. Azar,et al.  Considerations in the choice of an antiepileptic drug in the treatment of epilepsy. , 2008, Seminars in neurology.

[31]  M Ryan,et al.  Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. , 1998, Health economics.

[32]  L. Fraenkel,et al.  Patients’ Preferences for Treatment of Hepatitis C , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[33]  Joel Huber,et al.  Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis☆ , 1991 .

[34]  Josemir W Sander.  Ultimate success in epilepsy – the patient's perspective , 2005, European journal of neurology.

[35]  L. Fraenkel,et al.  Pilot testing of a decision support tool for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2011, Journal of vascular surgery.

[36]  Emuella Flood,et al.  Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment. , 2005, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[37]  Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[38]  T. Tomson.  Drug selection for the newly diagnosed patient: When is a new generation antiepileptic drug indicated? , 2004, Journal of Neurology.

[39]  F. Gilliam.  Epilepsy – success in clinical practice: translating trials to practice , 2005, European journal of neurology.

[40]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[41]  C. Jenkins,et al.  Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. , 2007, Health economics.

[42]  M. Brodie.  Medical therapy of epilepsy: When to initiate treatment and when to combine? , 2005, Journal of Neurology.

[43]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. , 2003, Health economics.

[44]  M. Buxton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. , 1998, Health economics.

[45]  Efficacy and tolerability of the new antiepileptic drugs I: Treatment of new onset epilepsy: Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee and Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society , 2004 .

[46]  John F P Bridges,et al.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007. , 2008, The patient.