Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment.

OBJECTIVE Choosing among HIV medications involve making trade-offs among various efficacy, convenience, resistance, and side-effect attributes. This study tested the feasibility of using adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) to assess preferences (utilities) for HIV medication attributes. METHODS HIV individuals were recruited through newspaper advertisements. Participants completed a computerized ACA survey that assessed 12 attributes, including side effects, regimen convenience, resistance, and efficacy. Literature on third-agent HIV drugs was used to identify percentage risk and severity level descriptions for each attribute. Based on the ACA-derived utilities, we assessed the relative importance of the attributes by averaging individually calculated importance and estimated the percentages that would prefer selected HIV medications over others. To check validity of the ACA utilities, the survey also had respondents choose among medications with different attribute profiles. RESULTS The 35 respondents were primarily African Americans (94%) and unemployed (54%). Of these, 28 (80%) provided consistent responses and were analyzed. Of the 12 medication attributes evaluated, the risk of developing resistance, regimen convenience, and the risk of sleep disturbance had the greatest impact on preferences; each accounting for more than 8.5% of the variation in preferences. These were followed by risk of drug failure (8.2%), cholesterol elevation (7.1%), diarrhea (7.1%) and nausea (6.9%). The ACA utilities accurately predicted patients' actual medication choices 75% of the time. CONCLUSIONS Adaptive conjoint analysis was successful in predicting HIV treatment preferences under different medication scenarios. Resistance, regimen convenience, and sleep disturbance would likely make the most difference in the perceived value of a third-agent HIV medication.

[1]  Edwin DeJesus,et al.  SOLO: 48-week efficacy and safety comparison of once-daily fosamprenavir /ritonavir versus twice-daily nelfinavir in naive HIV-1-infected patients , 2004, AIDS.

[2]  G. Gray,et al.  The NEAT Study: A 48-Week Open-Label Study to Compare the Antiviral Efficacy and Safety of GW433908 Versus Nelfinavir in Antiretroviral Therapy–Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients , 2004, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[3]  G. Beall,et al.  Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  R. Hays,et al.  Patient preferences regarding antiretroviral therapy , 2002, International journal of STD & AIDS.

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

[6]  J. Tolson,et al.  Perspectives on Adherence and Simplicity for HIV-Infected Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy: Self-Report of the Relative Importance of Multiple Attributes of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) Regimens in Predicting Adherence , 2004, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[7]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[8]  M. Buxton,et al.  Patients' preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. , 2003, Rheumatology.

[9]  E. D. Barnhart Physicians Desk Reference , 1990 .

[10]  E. Collins,et al.  An Internet‐Based Utility Assessment of Breast Hypertrophy , 2001, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[11]  D. Mazur Informed consent: court viewpoints and medical decision making. , 1986, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  J. Schmier,et al.  Utility assessments of opioid treatment for chronic pain. , 2002, Pain medicine.

[13]  J Concato,et al.  Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis , 2004, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[14]  Dick R. Wittink,et al.  Understanding Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Lupus Nephritis With Adaptive Conjoint Analysis , 2001, Medical care.

[15]  Court Viewpoints and Medical Decision Making , 1986 .

[16]  G W Timm,et al.  Editorial Comment , 2001, International Journal of Impotence Research.