A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) is usually managed with disease modifying drugs (DMDs), most commonly administered via self-injection. The aim of this study was to estimate the influence that different treatment-related attributes have for MS patients on their choice of MS DMD device. By establishing the relative importance of these characteristics for patients it should be possible to better understand the acceptability of a given device and to optimize the development of future devices. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was developed on the basis of a review of published literature. Attributes identified for inclusion in the survey were: ease of use; comfort of use; presence of additional functions, needle visibility; practicality and efficacy. Choice sets were presented as pairs of hypothetical treatments based upon a fractional factorial design. One-hundred device-using MS patients completed the survey online. Analysis was conducted using a mixed-logit approach. RESULTS: Analysis of the DCE data revealed that all attributes significantly predicted treatment choice. Efficacy exhibited the largest effect on treatment selection and this provided context for understanding the magnitude of impact for the other attributes. Reducing the discomfort associated with device use and eliminating the necessity for assembly or drug reconstitution were highly valued. The addition of reminder and time-stamping functions, improved needlestick injury prevention, and reduction in device size were secondary concerns but still deemed desirable. CONCLUSION: Efficacy is of primary importance to MS patients, but characteristics of drug delivery devices can play an important role in treatment decision-making. Not all device characteristics could be included, and results are based upon 100 participants only. Findings suggest there is significant potential value in developing self-injection devices that are not only efficacious but also convenient and comfortable to use. Reducing barriers to adherence could potentially translate into improved treatment outcomes for patients with MS.

A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken and an economic model constructed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis) in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The main comparators considered were other established chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-one resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2005. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and quality assessed. Where appropriate, outcomes were synthesised using formal analytic approaches. A new economic model was developed in order to establish the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel compared with a range of potential comparators. A separate review was undertaken to identify sources of utility data required to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken to explore the robustness of the main analysis to alternative assumptions related to quality of life. Monte Carlo simulation was used to propagate uncertainty in input parameters through the model in such a way that the results of the analysis could be presented with their uncertainty. The impact of uncertainty surrounding the decision was established using value of information and implementation approaches. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria. A direct comparison of docetaxel plus prednisone versus mitoxantrone plus prednisone in an open-label randomised trial showed improved outcomes for docetaxel plus prednisone in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain and prostate-specific antigen decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel: docetaxel plus estramustine and docetaxel plus prednisone plus estramustine, also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Indirect comparison suggested that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be superior to corticosteroids alone in terms of overall survival. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness were primarily informed by the results of the in-house model. This indicated that mitoxantrone plus a corticosteroid is probably cheaper and more effective than corticosteroid alone. Compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone/prednisolone, the use of docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone (3-weekly) appears cost-effective only if the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with docetaxel plus prednisone (3-weekly) remained fairly robust to these variations with estimates ranging from 28,000 pounds to 33,000 pounds per QALY. Value of information analysis revealed that further research is potentially valuable. Given a maximum acceptable ratio of 30,000 pounds per QALY, the expected value of information was estimated to be approximately 13 million pounds. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the research suggests that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be the most effective treatment for men with mHRPC. The economic model suggests that treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone is cost-effective in patients with mHRPC provided the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per additional QALY. Future research should include the direct assessment of quality of life and utility gain associated with different treatments, including the effect of adverse events of treatment, using generic instruments, which are suitable for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analyses.