Dataset Information

Patient and retina specialists' preferences in neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatment. A discrete choice experiment.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction and objective

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) leads to severe and permanent visual impairment, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and functional independence. Although treatment with anti- vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) prevents and, in some cases, reverses visual damage, the need for frequent monitoring visits and intravitreal injections represents a significant burden on patients, caregivers and retina specialists.

Objective

To elicit preferences for nAMD treatment characteristics from the perspectives of patients and retina specialists.

Method

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants (patients > 50 years with nAMD receiving anti-VEGF drugs for at least 2 years and without previous experience with anti-VEGF and retina specialists working in the Spanish National Healthcare System) were asked to select one of two hypothetical treatments resulting from the combination of five attributes (effects on visual function, effects on retinal fluid, treatment regimen, monitoring frequency, and cost); their levels were identified by reviewing the literature and two focus groups. The relative importance (RI) given to each attribute was estimated using a mixed logit model. The marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated taking cost as the risk attribute.

Results

A total of 110 patients (P) [aged 79.0 (SD:7.4) years; 57.3% women; 2.3 (SD:0.7) years with nAMD; 2.1 years (SD:0.1) in treatment] and 66 retina specialists (RS) participated in the study. Participants gave greater RI to improvements in their visual function [60.0% (P); 52.7% (RS)], lower monitoring frequency [20.2% (P); 27.1% (RS)] and reduction in retinal fluid [9.8% (P); 13.0%(RS)]. Patients and retina specialists would agree to an increase in cost by 65.0% and 56.5%, respectively, in exchange for improvements of visual function; and 25.5% and 43.3% on delaying monitoring frequency by one month.

Conclusions

Efficacy of treatment, in terms of visual function improvements, is the main driver for treatment election for both patients and retina specialists. Treatment monitoring requirements are also considered, mainly from the retina specialist's perspective. These results suggest that the use of more efficacious anti-VEGF agents with a longer duration of action may contribute to aligning treatment characteristics with patients/specialists' preferences. A better alignment would facilitate better disease management, fulfilling the unmet needs of patients and retina specialists.

SUBMITTER: Gallego-Pinazo R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8719669 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:It is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery. DESIGN:A discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital. SETTING:North East England. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make. RESULTS:Responses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital. CONCLUSIONS:People value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer.