Public Preference for Off-Label Use of Drugs for Cancer Treatment and Relative Importance of Associated Adverse Events: A Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling

被引:0
|
作者
Wang, Kailu [1 ]
Shum, Ho-Man [1 ]
Yam, Carrie Ho-Kwan [1 ]
Wu, Yushan [1 ]
Wong, Eliza Lai-Yi [1 ]
Yeoh, Eng-Kiong [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Prince Wales Hosp, Ctr Hlth Syst & Policy Res, Fac Med,JC Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care,Sha Tin, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
UTILITY;
D O I
10.1007/s40258-024-00912-1
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Background and ObjectivePatients may get more treatment options with off-label use of drugs while exposed to unknown risks of adverse events. Little is known about the public or demand-side perspective on off-label drug use, which is important to understand how to use off-label treatment and devise financial assistance. This study aimed to quantify public preference for off-label cancer treatment outcomes, process, and costs, and perceived importance of associated adverse events.MethodsA discrete choice experiment and a best-worst scaling were conducted in Hong Kong in December 2022. Quota sampling was used to randomly select the study sample from a territory-wide panel of working-age adults. Preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for treatment effectiveness, risk of adverse events, mode of drug administration, and availability of off-label treatment guidelines were estimated using a random parameter logit model and latent class model. The relative importance of different adverse events was elicited using Case 1 best-worst scaling.ResultsA total of 435 respondents provided valid responses. In the discrete choice experiment, the respondents indicated that extra overall survival as treatment effectiveness (WTP: HK$448,000/US$57,400 for 12-month vs 3-month extra survival) was the most important attribute for off-label drugs, followed by the risk of adverse events (WTP: HK$318,000/US$40,800 for 10% chance to have adverse event vs 55%), mode of drug administration (WTP: HK$42,000/US$5300 for oral intake vs injection), and availability of guidelines (WTP: HK$31,000/US$4000 for available versus not available). Four groups with distinct preferences were identified, including effectiveness oriented, off-label use refusal, oral intake oriented, and adverse event risk aversion. In the best-worse scaling, hypothyroidism, nausea/vomiting, and arthralgia/joint pain were the three most important adverse events based on the perceptions of respondents. Risk-averse respondents, who were identified from the discrete choice experiment, had different perceived importance of the adverse events compared with those with other preferences.ConclusionsKnowing the preference and WTP for cancer treatment-related characteristics from a societal perspective facilitates doctors' communications with patients on decision making and treatment goal-setting for off-label treatment, and enables devising financial assistance for related treatments. This study also provides important insight to inform evaluations of public acceptance and information dissemination in drug development as well as future economic evaluations.
引用
收藏
页码:849 / 860
页数:12
相关论文
共 9 条
  • [1] DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT VS. BEST-WORST SCALING: AN EMPIRICAL COMPARISON IN MEASURING TREATMENT PREFERENCE OF LUNG CANCER PATIENTS
    Zhang, M.
    He, X.
    Wu, J.
    Xie, F.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2022, 25 (07) : S559 - S559
  • [2] Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment
    Soekhai, Vikas
    Donkers, Bas
    Johansson, Jennifer Viberg
    Jimenez-Moreno, Cecilia
    Pinto, Cathy Anne
    de Wit, G. Ardine
    de Bekker-Grob, Esther
    PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2023, 16 (03): : 239 - 253
  • [3] Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment
    Vikas Soekhai
    Bas Donkers
    Jennifer Viberg Johansson
    Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno
    Cathy Anne Pinto
    G. Ardine de Wit
    Esther de Bekker-Grob
    The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2023, 16 : 239 - 253
  • [4] Using Best-Worst Scaling Survey to Investigate the Relative Importance of Attributes Associated with Public Hospital Outpatient Appointments
    Pain, Tilley
    Brown, Amy
    Kingston, Gail
    Perks, Stephen
    Patterson, Corey
    Firth, Nerida
    Lester, Jessica
    Sherwood, Luke
    Brennan, Sonja
    Street, Deborah
    PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2025, : 237 - 247
  • [5] Assessment of patients' preferences for new anticancer drugs in China: a best-worst discrete choice experiment on three common cancer types
    Feng, Zhe
    Meng, Jingyi
    Sun, Yanjun
    Xie, Tongling
    Lu, Wenzhang
    Wang, Guohua
    Geng, Jinsong
    BMJ OPEN, 2023, 13 (06):
  • [6] WHAT FACTORS DO CLINICIANS VALUE MOST IN SELECTING PHYSICIAN PREFERENCE ITEMS? A SURVEY IN ORTHOPEDICS USING DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT AND BEST-WORST SCALING
    Armeni, P.
    Meregaglia, M.
    Borsoi, L.
    Torbica, A.
    Callea, G.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2021, 24 : S126 - S126
  • [7] What works better for preference elicitation among older people? Cognitive burden of discrete choice experiment and case 2 best-worst scaling in an online setting
    Himmler, Sebastian
    Soekhai, Vikas
    van Exel, Job
    Brouwer, Werner
    JOURNAL OF CHOICE MODELLING, 2021, 38
  • [8] Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Attributes of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced/Metastatic HR Positive/HER2 Negative Breast Cancer: Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling
    Maculaitis, Martine C.
    Liu, Xianchen
    Will, Oliver
    Hanson, Madelyn
    McRoy, Lynn
    Berk, Alexandra
    Crastnopol, Melissa
    PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE, 2020, 14 : 2201 - 2214
  • [9] Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: A feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods
    Ratcliffe J.
    Couzner L.
    Flynn T.
    Sawyer M.
    Stevens K.
    Brazier J.
    Burgess L.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2011, 9 (1) : 15 - 27