BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Payers and health technology assessment bodies have realized the importance of patient preference data in their decision making process. Attribute-based stated-preference methods have been widely used to obtain patient preference information in chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). This is an update of a previously published systematic literature review of attribute-based stated preference studies in MS patients¹.

METHODS: A systematic search was performed from 01 January 2017 to 17 April 2019 in multiple databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database and MEDLINE using the OVID^®.

RESULTS: Of the 38 publications retrieved, twelve contained relevant data. Four publications were already included in the previous review, therefore excluded. One study examined patient preference related to disease monitoring, the remaining seven studies examined patient preference related to disease modifying therapies (DMTs). Five were discrete-choice studies and three were conjoint analysis. Only one study reported the patient compensation. One study was a face-to-face survey, remaining seven studies were online surveys. One study had three attributes in the survey, remaining studies had ≥6 attributes. Fractional factorial design of survey was used in all studies. Safety and efficacy parameters, along with mode/frequency of DMT administration are commonly used attributes in all studies. Recommendations from the previous review holds true for the studies analyzed in our review. Various aspects of attribute development and study conduct were missing in a number of included studies. The previous review concluded that the ISPOR conjoint analysis checklist was found to be unsuitable for the study quality assessment, hence we have not used it in our study.

CONCLUSIONS: The attribute-based stated preference method is used extensively to examine MS patients’ preferences of DMTs. However, reporting of the attribute development and study conduct needs further improvements.

REFERENCE:

1. Webb et al. Patient (2018) 11:391–402