Patient Preferences Associated with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapies for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Diabetic Macular Edema.

anti-VEGF therapy conjoint analysis diabetic macular edema neovascular age-related macular degeneration patient preferences

Journal

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
ISSN: 1177-5467
Titre abrégé: Clin Ophthalmol
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101321512

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 24 07 2020
accepted: 14 09 2020
entrez: 16 10 2020
pubmed: 17 10 2020
medline: 17 10 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To evaluate treatment-related preferences among patients receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or diabetic macular edema (DME). We conducted a prospective survey of patients with nAMD or DME treated at one of three US-based retina clinics. Prior to survey development, small focus groups with anti-VEGF-treated patients identified five treatment-related "attributes" considered important to those with nAMD or DME: vision outcomes, cost to the insurance provider, cost to the patient, frequency of treatment, and drug label status. Attributes were described using two to three "levels", and hypothetical treatment profiles were generated by assigning one level to each attribute. Surveyed patients were asked to indicate their preference between two given treatment profiles for a total of eight pairwise comparisons. Discrete choice conjoint analysis was performed to estimate the relative importance of each attribute for the overall patient cohort, and for subgroups stratified by age and highest education level. Among 300 respondents, 54% were female, 78% were aged ≥65 years, and 67% indicated that high school was their highest level of education. Achieving good vision was the most important factor associated with anti-VEGF therapy for nAMD or DME (relative importance, 40.4%), followed by low cost to the patient, on-label drug status, less frequent treatment intervals, and low cost to the insurance provider (23.1%, 21.3%, 12.2%, and 3.0%, respectively). When patients were stratified by age group or highest education level, preference trends across subgroups were generally comparable with the overall cohort. Our data suggest that treatment decisions regarding anti-VEGF therapies for nAMD or DME are most likely driven by their efficacy, and that patients may be willing to accept less desirable treatment attributes, such as increased cost and/or injection frequency, in order to achieve superior vision outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33061283
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S273564
pii: 273564
pmc: PMC7534869
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2975-2982

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Bhagat et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Dr Meena George has served on the advisory board of Allergan, outside the submitted work. Dr Veeral S Sheth has served as a consultant for Alimera, Eyepoint, Genentech, Inc., Notal Vision, and Novartis; and reports personal fees from Genentech, Novartis, Alimera, Notal Vision, and Eyepoint, and grant support from Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Chengdu Kanghong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Graybug Vision, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Outlook Therapeutics, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest with respect to this work.

Références

Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Feb;99(2):141-6
pubmed: 25271911
Retina. 2004 Oct;24(5):676-98
pubmed: 15492621
Ophthalmology. 2020 Jan;127(1):P1-P65
pubmed: 31757502
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008 Jun 24;6:12
pubmed: 18573218
Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Aug;34(6):506-17
pubmed: 25189522
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020 Mar;26(3):253-266
pubmed: 32020843
Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Nov;30(11):2329-41
pubmed: 25105306
Ophthalmology. 2020 Jan;127(1):P66-P145
pubmed: 31757498
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 26;372(13):1193-203
pubmed: 25692915
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Dec;92(12):1601-5
pubmed: 18664502
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug 1;134(8):888-96
pubmed: 27280850
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:229-37
pubmed: 21660105
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun;123(6):1351-9
pubmed: 26935357
Retina. 2015 Aug;35(8):1489-506
pubmed: 26076215
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Jul;47(7):2885-8
pubmed: 16799029
J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:7398470
pubmed: 28484646
Ann Fam Med. 2010 Sep-Oct;8(5):410-7
pubmed: 20843882
BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1530-3
pubmed: 10834905
Ophthalmology. 2020 Jan;127(1):72-84
pubmed: 30986442
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):13-7
pubmed: 12571339
Ophthalmology. 2016 Apr;123(4):876-83
pubmed: 26778346
Eye (Lond). 2016 May;30(5):698-704
pubmed: 26915744
Ophthalmology. 2016 Jan;123(1):70-77.e1
pubmed: 26477843
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 08;2:CD011346
pubmed: 26857947
J Med Econ. 2020 Mar;23(3):287-296
pubmed: 31502893

Auteurs

Davis Bhagat (D)

University Retina and Macula Associates, Oak Forest, IL, USA.

Breanne Kirby (B)

University Retina and Macula Associates, Oak Forest, IL, USA.

Harit Bhatt (H)

University Retina and Macula Associates, Oak Forest, IL, USA.
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.

Rama Jager (R)

University Retina and Macula Associates, Oak Forest, IL, USA.
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.

Meena George (M)

University Retina and Macula Associates, Oak Forest, IL, USA.
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.

Veeral Sheth (V)

University Retina and Macula Associates, Oak Forest, IL, USA.
University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.

Classifications MeSH