Daisuke Nakamoto, Yi Piao, Hajime Mizutani, Michael LoPresti, Yunosuke Chikamura, Dilip Makhija, Kyung Min Kwon, Jamie Zagorski, Masahisa Jinushi, Yuichiro Eguchi
{"title":"Patient and physician preferences for treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in Japan: a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Daisuke Nakamoto, Yi Piao, Hajime Mizutani, Michael LoPresti, Yunosuke Chikamura, Dilip Makhija, Kyung Min Kwon, Jamie Zagorski, Masahisa Jinushi, Yuichiro Eguchi","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2025.2483572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study was performed to evaluate patients' and physicians' preferences regarding hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment in Japan, particularly focusing on direct-acting antivirals. Understanding these preferences is important for maintaining adherence to treatment necessary for achieving HCV elimination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A discrete choice experiment was conducted to identify patients' and physicians' preferences for HCV treatment in Japan. Eligible participants completed a preference survey <i>via</i> an online questionnaire. Eight attributes and their respective levels - pertaining to dosing regimen/schedule, safety, and out-of-pocket costs - were identified. The primary and secondary endpoints were the relative attribute importance (RAI) and utility value of attribute levels, which were compared between patients and physicians to highlight differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both patients (<i>n</i> = 95) and physicians (<i>n</i> = 118) showed the greatest concern for total out-of-pocket treatment costs, followed by safety risks. While patients and physicians generally shared similar treatment preferences, patients placed a higher RAI on total out-of-pocket costs than did physicians (50.4% vs. 39.4%). Conversely, patients assigned lower RAI values to the risks of nasopharyngitis and pruritus (15.2% vs. 17.9% and 11.7% vs. 16.2%, respectively). The RAI for the number of tablets taken daily was higher than that for treatment duration among patients (11.6% vs. 0.2%), but nearly equal among physicians.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The study had potential non-response bias, physicians not being actual care providers for surveyed patients, a small sample size, reliance on predefined DCE attributes, and limited participant diversity from online panels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the importance of patient-centered care in HCV treatment and the need to raise awareness of the public subsidy for hepatitis, and to ensure an effective access scheme for the patients. Simplifying regimens like once-daily pills and minimal monitoring may enhance treatment convenience. Improved patient-physician communication supports optimized strategies, aiding Japan's goal of HCV elimination by 2030.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"524-534"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2483572","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: This study was performed to evaluate patients' and physicians' preferences regarding hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment in Japan, particularly focusing on direct-acting antivirals. Understanding these preferences is important for maintaining adherence to treatment necessary for achieving HCV elimination.
Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to identify patients' and physicians' preferences for HCV treatment in Japan. Eligible participants completed a preference survey via an online questionnaire. Eight attributes and their respective levels - pertaining to dosing regimen/schedule, safety, and out-of-pocket costs - were identified. The primary and secondary endpoints were the relative attribute importance (RAI) and utility value of attribute levels, which were compared between patients and physicians to highlight differences.
Results: Both patients (n = 95) and physicians (n = 118) showed the greatest concern for total out-of-pocket treatment costs, followed by safety risks. While patients and physicians generally shared similar treatment preferences, patients placed a higher RAI on total out-of-pocket costs than did physicians (50.4% vs. 39.4%). Conversely, patients assigned lower RAI values to the risks of nasopharyngitis and pruritus (15.2% vs. 17.9% and 11.7% vs. 16.2%, respectively). The RAI for the number of tablets taken daily was higher than that for treatment duration among patients (11.6% vs. 0.2%), but nearly equal among physicians.
Limitations: The study had potential non-response bias, physicians not being actual care providers for surveyed patients, a small sample size, reliance on predefined DCE attributes, and limited participant diversity from online panels.
Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of patient-centered care in HCV treatment and the need to raise awareness of the public subsidy for hepatitis, and to ensure an effective access scheme for the patients. Simplifying regimens like once-daily pills and minimal monitoring may enhance treatment convenience. Improved patient-physician communication supports optimized strategies, aiding Japan's goal of HCV elimination by 2030.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication.
Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience