Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 9

Patient and parent preferences for characteristics of prophylactic treatment in hemophilia

Authors Furlan R, Krishnan S, Vietri J

Received 16 July 2015

Accepted for publication 16 September 2015

Published 23 November 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 1687—1694

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S92520

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Safaa Khaled

Peer reviewer comments 4

Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen


Roberto Furlan,1 Sangeeta Krishnan,2 Jeffrey Vietri3

1Advanced Methods, Kantar Health, Epsom, Surrey, UK; 2Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Biogen, MA, USA; 3Health Outcomes, Kantar Health, Milan, Italy

Introduction: New longer-acting factor products will potentially allow for less frequent infusion in prophylactic treatment of hemophilia. However, the role of administration frequency relative to other treatment attributes in determining preferences for prophylactic hemophilia treatment regimens is not well understood.
Aim: To identify the relative importance of frequency of administration, efficacy, and other treatment characteristics among candidates for prophylactic treatment for hemophilia A and B.
Method: An Internet survey was conducted among hemophilia patients and the parents of pediatric hemophilia patients in Australia, Canada, and the US. A monadic conjoint task was included in the survey, which varied frequency of administration (three, two, or one time per week for hemophilia A; twice weekly, weekly, or biweekly for hemophilia B), efficacy (no bleeding or breakthrough bleeding once every 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months), diluent volume (3 mL vs 2.5 mL for hemophilia A; 5 mL vs 3 mL for hemophilia B), vials per infusion (2 vs 1), reconstitution device (assembly required vs not), and manufacturer (established in hemophilia vs not). Respondents were asked their likelihood to switch from their current regimen to the presented treatment. Respondents were told to assume that other aspects of treatment, such as risk of inhibitor development, cost, and method of distribution, would remain the same.
Results: A total of 89 patients and/or parents of children with hemophilia A participated; another 32 were included in the exercise for hemophilia B. Relative importance was 47%, 24%, and 18% for frequency of administration, efficacy, and manufacturer, respectively, in hemophilia A; analogous values were 48%, 26%, and 21% in hemophilia B. The remaining attributes had little impact on preferences.
Conclusion: Patients who are candidates for prophylaxis and their caregivers indicate a preference for reduced frequency of administration and high efficacy, but preferences were more sensitive to administration frequency than small changes in annual bleeding rate.

Keywords: prophylaxis, conjoint analysis, treatment preferences, breakthrough bleeds, frequency of administration

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]