PATIENT PREFERENCES IN NEUROMYELITIS OPTICA SPECTRUM DISEASE (NMOSD): A SWING WEIGHTING STUDY
Author(s)
Rebekah Hall, PhD1, Moushmi Singh, MSc2, Istvan Majer, PhD3, Dustin Cavida, PharmD4, Alicia Hughes, PhD5, Lina Eliasson, PhD6, Gin Nie Chua, PhD1.
1Acaster Lloyd, London, United Kingdom, 2Amgen Ltd, Uxbridge, United Kingdom, 3Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland, 4Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 5Sprout Health Solutions, London, United Kingdom, 6Sprout Health Solutions Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
1Acaster Lloyd, London, United Kingdom, 2Amgen Ltd, Uxbridge, United Kingdom, 3Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland, 4Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 5Sprout Health Solutions, London, United Kingdom, 6Sprout Health Solutions Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Treatment options for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) have increased with the approval of targeted biologics. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment benefits, risks, and administration characteristics can support patient-centered treatment decision-making. This study assessed patient preferences for NMOSD treatment attributes and quantified trade-offs.
METHODS: An interviewer-administered swing-weighting survey was conducted with 30 NMOSD patients in the US. Participants completed a series of ranking, rating, and scoring tasks to quantify the importance of different attributes and levels. Eight attributes were included based on a literature review, clinician interviews and patient focus groups: chance of attack in the next year, change in disability in the next year, prevention of worsening of vision, prevention of worsening of pain, frequency and route of treatment administration, chance of serious infection, chance of administration-related reactions, need for vaccination.
RESULTS: Participants most valued a treatment that reduces the chance of attack in the next year and prevents worsening disability. When considering trade-offs, participants were willing to accept an increase in chance of attack from 6% to 15% if the risk of serious infections decreased from 20% to 5%, assuming all other attributes remained unchanged. Among the administration options evaluated, participants most preferred intravenous (IV) administration every 6 months and least preferred bi-weekly IV and monthly self-administered subcutaneous administration. IV treatment given every 6 months with a 15% chance of attack was considered equally preferable to a bi-weekly IV treatment with a 9% chance of attack, or a monthly self-administered subcutaneous treatment with a 12.5% chance of attack. Need for vaccination before treatment was the least important attribute overall.
CONCLUSIONS: Although reducing attack in NMOSD is most important overall, the study suggests patients are willing to accept a reduction in treatment efficacy for improvements in administration, safety, and other treatment characteristics, highlighting the importance of patient preferences in NMOSD treatment decision-making.
METHODS: An interviewer-administered swing-weighting survey was conducted with 30 NMOSD patients in the US. Participants completed a series of ranking, rating, and scoring tasks to quantify the importance of different attributes and levels. Eight attributes were included based on a literature review, clinician interviews and patient focus groups: chance of attack in the next year, change in disability in the next year, prevention of worsening of vision, prevention of worsening of pain, frequency and route of treatment administration, chance of serious infection, chance of administration-related reactions, need for vaccination.
RESULTS: Participants most valued a treatment that reduces the chance of attack in the next year and prevents worsening disability. When considering trade-offs, participants were willing to accept an increase in chance of attack from 6% to 15% if the risk of serious infections decreased from 20% to 5%, assuming all other attributes remained unchanged. Among the administration options evaluated, participants most preferred intravenous (IV) administration every 6 months and least preferred bi-weekly IV and monthly self-administered subcutaneous administration. IV treatment given every 6 months with a 15% chance of attack was considered equally preferable to a bi-weekly IV treatment with a 9% chance of attack, or a monthly self-administered subcutaneous treatment with a 12.5% chance of attack. Need for vaccination before treatment was the least important attribute overall.
CONCLUSIONS: Although reducing attack in NMOSD is most important overall, the study suggests patients are willing to accept a reduction in treatment efficacy for improvements in administration, safety, and other treatment characteristics, highlighting the importance of patient preferences in NMOSD treatment decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR178
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Disease
Biologics & Biosimilars, Neurological Disorders, Rare & Orphan Diseases, Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)