肌萎缩侧索硬化症患者对鞘内给药的偏好:在植入式给药装置和治疗性腰椎穿刺之间做出选择

Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich
{"title":"肌萎缩侧索硬化症患者对鞘内给药的偏好:在植入式给药装置和治疗性腰椎穿刺之间做出选择","authors":"Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objective</h3><p>We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed &lt; 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture\",\"authors\":\"Jaein Seo, Sandeep Saurkar, Gabriela S. Fernandez, Anup Das, Stephen A. Goutman, Sebastian Heidenreich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objective</h3><p>We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Participants (<i>N</i> = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed &lt; 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00665-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景肌萎缩侧索硬化症(ALS)的新型鞘内治疗可能需要使用腰椎穿刺(LP)给药。植入式给药装置(IDDD)可能是一种替代方法,但人们对患者对鞘内给药方法的偏好知之甚少。方法 在美国和欧洲的 ALS 患者中在线开展了离散选择实验(DCE)和阈值技术(TT)练习。在离散选择实验中,患者在管理属性之间进行权衡。这些属性是通过定性访谈确定的。TT 得出了装置植入手术并发症的最大可接受风险 (MAR)。DCE 数据采用混合对数法进行分析,将相对属性重要性 (RAI) 量化为每个属性对偏好的最大贡献,并估算装置故障的最大可接受风险。TT 数据采用区间回归法进行分析。结果参与者(N = 295)的平均年龄为 57.7 岁;大多数(74.2%)是在 3 年前确诊的。偏好受设备故障风险(RAI 28.6%)、给药频率(26.4%)、给药风险(19.7%)、总体持续时间(17.8%)和预约地点(7.5%)的影响。患者接受了 5.6% 的设备故障风险,以将总体持续时间从 2 小时缩短至 30 分钟,并接受了 3.6% 的在当地诊所而非医院用药的风险。植入手术并发症的平均发生率为 29%。在四种情况中的三种情况下,患者更倾向于使用 IDDD 而不是 LP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture

Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture

Background

Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients’ preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.

Objective

We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.

Results

Participants (N = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.

Conclusion

Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信