dc.contributor.author
Alten, Rieke
dc.contributor.author
Krüger, Klaus
dc.contributor.author
Rellecke, Julian
dc.contributor.author
Schiffner-Rohe, Julia
dc.contributor.author
Behmer, Olaf
dc.contributor.author
Schiffhorst, Guido
dc.contributor.author
Nolting, Hans-Dieter
dc.date.accessioned
2018-06-08T11:00:20Z
dc.date.available
2017-01-06T11:05:29.135Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/21456
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-24749
dc.description.abstract
Background: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used in
second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are administered
parenterally. However, so-called targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) –
developed more recently – offer alternative (ie, oral) administration forms in
second-line treatment. Since bDMARDs and tsDMARDs can be regarded as equal in
terms of efficacy, the present study examines whether such characteristics as
route of administration drive RA patients’ treatment choice. This may
ultimately suggest superiority of some second-line DMARDs over equally
effective options, at least according to RA-patient preferences. Objective:
The current study assessed the importance of oral administration among other
treatment characteristics differing between available second-line DMARDs for
RA patients’ preferences using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE). Materials
and methods: The DCE involved scenarios of three hypothetical treatment
options in a d-efficient design with varying levels of key attributes (route
and frequency of administration, time till onset of drug effect, combination
therapy, possible side effects), as defined by focus groups. Further patient
characteristics were recorded by an accompanying questionnaire. In the DCE,
patients were asked to choose best and worst options (best–worst scaling).
Results were analyzed by count analysis and adjusted regression analysis.
Results: A total of 1,588 subjects completed the DCE and were eligible for
final analyses. Across all characteristics included in the DCE, “oral
administration” was most desired and “intravenous infusion” was most strongly
rejected. This was followed by “no combination with methotrexate” being
strongly preferred and “intake every 1–2 weeks” being strongly rejected. On
average, levels of route of administration showed strongest influences on
patients’ decisions in post hoc bootstrapping analysis. Conclusion: According
to the results, an oral DMARD that does not have to be combined with
methotrexate and is not administered (only) every 1–2 weeks appears a highly
favorable treatment option for patients with RA. DMARDs meeting these
preferences may increase compliance and adherence in RA treatment.
en
dc.rights.uri
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
dc.subject
rheumatoid arthritis
dc.subject
disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
dc.subject
patient preferences
dc.subject
discrete-choice experiment
dc.subject
best–worst scaling
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a
discrete-choice approach
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation
Patient Preference and Adherence. - 10 (2016), S. 2217-2228
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.2147/PPA.S117774
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
http://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S117774
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
de
refubium.mycore.fudocsId
FUDOCS_document_000000026090
refubium.note.author
Der Artikel wurde in einer reinen Open-Access-Zeitschrift publiziert.
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
refubium.mycore.derivateId
FUDOCS_derivate_000000007481
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access