Treatment preferences of adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: A discrete choice experiment.

PRODUCTS with janus kinase (JAK) inhibition have been shown to promote hair regrowth in patients with alopecia areata (AA). To guide drug-approval and treatment decisions, it is important to understand patients' willingness to accept the potential risks of JAK inhibition in exchange for potential benefits. We quantified the treatment preferences of adult (≥18 years) and adolescent patients (12-17 years) with AA in the US and Europe to determine the trade-offs they are willing to make between benefits and risks. Preferences for oral AA treatment attributes were elicited using a discrete choice experiment consisting of 12 tasks in which patients chose between two hypothetical treatment alternatives and no treatment. Benefits included the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth (Severity of Alopecia Tool score ≤ 20) and achieving moderate-to-normal eyebrow and eyelash hair. Treatment-related risks included 3-year probabilities of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots. Preference estimates were used to calculate the maximum level of each risk that patients were willing to accept for increases in treatment benefits. The most important attribute to both adults (n = 201) and adolescents (n = 120) was a 50% probability of achieving hair regrowth on most or all the scalp; however, adolescents placed greater relative importance on this attribute than did adults. Adults were averse to the risks of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots, whereas adolescents were averse to the risk of cancer. For a 20% increase in the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth, adults were willing to accept a mean (95% confidence interval) 3-year risk of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots of 7.4% (5.5-9.3), 2.5% (1.9-3.1), and 9.3% (6.4-12.2). Adolescents were willing to accept a 3-year risk of cancer of 3.3% (2.4-4.2). Patients with AA in the US and Europe are willing to accept substantial risks to obtain an effective treatment.

Two Methods, One Story? Comparing Results of a Choice Experiment and Multidimensional Thresholding From a Clinician Preference Study in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of methods are used to elicit health preference information. It is unclear whether different elicitation methods produce similar results and policy advice. Here, we compared the results from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and multidimensional thresholding (MDT) that were conducted in the same sample. METHODS: Clinicians (N = 350) completed a DCE and MDT to elicit their preferences for 4 attributes related to the medical management of subarachnoid hemorrhage after aneurysm repair. Preference weights were compared between the DCE and MDT using a complete combinatorial convolution test. Additionally, data from the DCE and MDT were used to compute preference-based net treatment values for 16 hypothetical treatment profiles versus 1000 simulated comparators. The implied treatment recommendations were compared between the DCE and MDT. RESULTS: Preference weight distributions and median weights did not differ significantly between the DCE and MDT for any attribute: likelihood of delayed cerebral ischemia (medians 0.48 vs 0.40; P = .41), risk of lung complications (medians 0.27 vs 0.30; P = .52), risk of hypotension (medians 0.10 vs 0.11; P = .55), and risk of anemia (medians 0.07 vs 0.07; P = .50). The DCE and MDT produced similar treatment net value distributions (P > .05) and implied the same treatment recommendations in 82.3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The DCE and MDT elicited similar preference distributions and produced the same treatment recommendations for most tested cases. However, the share of people supporting the average treatment recommendation differed. More research is needed to determine how these findings would compare with those in other populations (in particular, patients) and applications.

Clinicians' preferences for managing aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage using endothelin receptor antagonists.

Background: The endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) clazosentan is being investigated for the medical prevention of cerebral vasospasm and associated complications, such as delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This study quantified how clinicians weigh the benefits and risks of ERAs for DCI prevention to better understand their treatment needs and expectations. Methods: An online choice experiment was conducted to elicit preferences of neurologists, intensivists, and neurosurgeons treating aSAH in the US and UK for the use of ERAs. The design of the choice experiment was informed by a feasibility assessment (N = 100), one-on-one interviews with clinicians (N = 10), a qualitative pilot (N = 13), and a quantitative pilot (N = 50). Selected treatment attributes included in the choice experiment were: one benefit (likelihood of DCI); and three risks (lung complications, hypotension, and anemia). In the choice experiment, clinicians repeatedly chose best and worst treatment options based on a scenario of a patient being treated in the ICU after aneurism repair. A correlated mixed logit model determined the relative attribute importance (RAI) and associated highest density interval (HDI) as well as acceptable benefit-risk trade-offs. Results: The final choice experiment was completed by 350 clinicians (116 neurologists, 129 intensivists/intensive care clinicians, and 105 neurosurgeons; mean age, 47.4 years). Reducing the likelihood of DCI (RAI = 56.5% [HDI, 53.6-59.5%]) had the largest impact on clinicians' treatment choices, followed by avoiding the risks of lung complications (RAI = 29.6% [HDI, 27.1-32.3%]), hypotension (RAI = 9.2% [HDI, 7.5-10.8%]), and anemia (RAI = 4.7% [HDI, 3.7-5.8%]). Clinicians expected the likelihood of DCI to decrease by ≥8.1% for a 20% increase in the risk of lung complications, ≥2.4% for a 20% increase in the risk of hypotension, and ≥1.2% for a 20% increase in the risk of anemia. Conclusions: Clinicians were willing to accept certain increased risks of adverse events for a reduced risk of DCI after aSAH. The likelihood of DCI occurring after aSAH can therefore be considered a clinically relevant endpoint in aSAH treatment development. Thus, evaluations of ERAs might focus on whether improvements (i.e., reductions) in the likelihood of DCI justify the risks of adverse events.