Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies.

Discrete choice experiments Epilepsy Patient preferences Systematic review

Journal

Health economics review
ISSN: 2191-1991
Titre abrégé: Health Econ Rev
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101583209

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 19 08 2022
accepted: 10 03 2023
entrez: 18 3 2023
pubmed: 19 3 2023
medline: 19 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients. A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively. A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life. The use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients.
METHODS METHODS
A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36933108
doi: 10.1186/s13561-023-00431-0
pii: 10.1186/s13561-023-00431-0
pmc: PMC10024410
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

17

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Jul 29;16:88
pubmed: 27473226
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(11):1167-81
pubmed: 16277551
Patient. 2022 Mar;15(2):219-232
pubmed: 34431073
Drug Target Insights. 2021 Nov 8;15:13-20
pubmed: 34785884
Eur J Neurol. 2005 Nov;12 Suppl 4:3-11
pubmed: 16144535
Health Econ Policy Law. 2009 Oct;4(Pt 4):527-46
pubmed: 19715635
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Sep;35(9):859-866
pubmed: 28536955
Patient. 2017 Oct;10(5):553-565
pubmed: 28364387
Front Neurol. 2020 Dec 03;11:602481
pubmed: 33343502
Med Decis Making. 2017 Apr;37(3):298-313
pubmed: 28061040
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 24;20(1):458
pubmed: 32448198
J Med Econ. 2020 Jun;23(6):546-556
pubmed: 32011209
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 9;15(7):e0235666
pubmed: 32645035
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 30;9(8):e027473
pubmed: 31473612
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Mar;105(3):672-683
pubmed: 30204252
Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36(8):1257-1275
pubmed: 32468865
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Feb;79:58-67
pubmed: 29248866
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Jun;11(3):163-80
pubmed: 23529716
Epilepsy Behav. 2012 Aug;24(4):474-9
pubmed: 22770879
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1-186
pubmed: 11262422
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226
pubmed: 30392040
Value Health. 2020 Jul;23(7):831-841
pubmed: 32762984
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Aug 30;15(1):126
pubmed: 28851437
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Oct 4;19(1):189
pubmed: 31585538
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13
pubmed: 23337210
Epilepsy Behav. 2018 Mar;80:247-253
pubmed: 29433949
PLoS Med. 2021 Mar 29;18(3):e1003583
pubmed: 33780438
Epilepsia. 2022 Feb;63(2):451-462
pubmed: 34921391
Patient. 2021 Sep;14(5):449-453
pubmed: 33721265
J Subst Use. 2016 Nov 1;21(6):662-668
pubmed: 27695386
Patient. 2022 Jan;15(1):55-68
pubmed: 34250574
Health Expect. 2020 Oct;23(5):1028-1036
pubmed: 32656807
JAMA. 2008 Jul 23;300(4):436-8
pubmed: 18647988
Drug Discov Today. 2019 Jul;24(7):1324-1331
pubmed: 31077814
Epilepsy Behav. 2011 Nov;22(3):542-7
pubmed: 21962951
Epilepsy Behav. 2022 Feb;127:108529
pubmed: 35016055
Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393(10172):689-701
pubmed: 30686584
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Oct;31(10):877-92
pubmed: 24081453

Auteurs

Sinaa Al-Aqeel (S)

Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Salageel@ksu.edu.sa.

Reem Alotaiwi (R)

Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Bushra Albugami (B)

Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Classifications MeSH