Discrete Choice Experiment to Understand Japanese Patients' and Physicians' Preferences for Preventive Treatments for Migraine

The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.

METHODS

A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.

RESULTS

Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.

DISCUSSION

The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.

Patient Preferences for Episodic Migraine Medications: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Self-Injectable Versus Oral Treatments Targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Pathway

Purpose

To understand the trade-offs that patients with episodic migraine are willing to make between attributes of self-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and oral small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants).

Patients and Methods

This was an online discrete choice experiment survey among adults with episodic migraine (≥4 and <15 migraine headache days and <15 headache days per month over 3 months) in the United States. Hypothetical treatments were characterized by five attributes: chance of ≥50% migraine reduction, impact on daily activities, onset of treatment effect, reduction in number of acute medications, and treatment administration. The attributes were selected based on insights gained from a previously conducted literature review and focus group study and aligned with the primary and secondary outcome measures in the double-blind Phase IV head-to-head clinical trial of a CGRP mAb versus gepant.

Results

601 patients (mean age: 44.8 years) completed the survey. Treatment preferences differed significantly between patients. However, for all patients, the most important driver of treatment preferences was the chance of a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine headache days (relative attribute importance: 38.3%), followed by the impact on daily activities (23.5%), the onset of treatment effect (19.5%), the reduction in need for acute medication (15.4%), and finally the route of administration (3.4%). Patients were willing to consider a one-week delayed onset of treatment effect or one-day increased need for acute medication for a higher chance (by 2.06% and 2.65% respectively) of a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine headache days. Patients would trade a reduction of migraine's impact on daily activities from "extreme" to "moderate" or "minimal" with a lower chance (17.09%, 12.06% respectively) of halving the number of monthly migraine headache days.

Conclusion

A ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine headache days was the most important treatment attribute for which participants were willing to trade against other attributes. The variation in treatment preferences between patients emphasizes the importance to align decision-making with individual patients' preferences.

Patients' Values and Preferences Regarding Pharmacologic Treatments for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine Headache: A Systematic Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Decision making regarding pharmacologic treatments for the prevention of episodic migraine may depend on the importance that patients place on outcomes and specific treatment preferences.

PURPOSE

To assess patients' values and preferences regarding pharmacologic treatments for the prevention of episodic migraine.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and CINAHL from inception to April 2024.

STUDY SELECTION

Quantitative studies reporting on values and preferences regarding pharmacologic treatments for the prevention of migraine in adults were eligible.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted data on study design, participants, and findings and assessed risk of bias using a tool developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) working group.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 6 studies (5 discrete choice experiments and 1 survey) comprising a total of 2307 participants and assessing the importance of a total of 32 attributes. Risk of bias was moderate in 3 and low in 3 studies; all but 1 were industry spon sored. Migraine severity, frequency, and duration were found to be the most important among several outcomes including acute medication need and side effects (low certainty). Other outcomes of importance were migraine attack on day 1 postdosing (moderate certainty) and duration of daily activity limitations (high certainty). Patients preferred oral tablets to injections and infusions (moderate certainty).

LIMITATIONS

Importance of attributes relative to each other could not be assessed due to the scarcity of direct comparisons. Participant sampling was unclearly reported in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Patients may have the strongest preference for oral treatments that reduce the severity, frequency, and duration of their migraine attacks, which reduce the duration of daily activity limitations and reduce risk of migraine on day 1. Side effects may be less important.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023414305).

Framing and Management of Migraines in Women: An Expert Opinion on Challenges, Current Approaches, and Future Multidisciplinary Perspectives

Background/Objectives: Migraines are a common neurological disorder that significantly impact women, especially during their reproductive years. Hormonal, neurological, and lifestyle factors shape migraine patterns, with fluctuations during menstruation, pregnancy, perimenopause, and menopause influencing migraine prevalence and severity. This expert opinion explores current challenges, therapeutic strategies, and future directions for personalized care, addressing the limited inclusion of women in clinical research across different life stages. Methods: In order to focus on hormonal influences, pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, including CGRP monoclonal antibodies, neuromodulation, and lifestyle interventions, a comprehensive analysis of literature, in particular on clinical trials, real-world studies, and guidelines on migraine management was performed. Emerging digital tools and AI-based approaches were also evaluated to improve personalized care for women with migraine. Results: Hormonal therapies, including contraceptives and HRTs, present both risks and benefits, particularly for women with migraines with aura, highlighting the need for individualized approaches. Advances in CGRP-targeted therapies have shown effectiveness in preventing refractory migraines. Non-pharmacological treatments, such as neuromodulation, acupuncture, and lifestyle adjustments, further expand the treatment landscape. However, research gaps remain, particularly regarding hormonal influences on migraines during pregnancy and menopause. Conclusions: Future research should prioritize female-specific clinical trials to better understand the impact of hormonal changes on migraines. Tailored therapies combining pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and digital solutions are essential for improving care. A multidisciplinary approach integrating personalized medicine, technological advancements, and patient education is crucial to optimizing outcomes and enhancing quality of life for women with migraine.

A Discrete-Choice Experiment Assessing the Patient Preferences and Real-World Experiences of Patients with Migraine in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a debilitating headache disorder with a high prevalence in Japan that imposes significant societal burden. Although the Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline for Headache Disorders 2021 recommends both acute and preventive migraine treatments, the usage of preventive treatments is still limited. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the treatment preferences of patients with migraine pertaining to both acute and preventive treatments.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with Japanese patients with migraine (10 for the qualitative interviews, and 400 for the DCE) who were recruited from the Rakuten Insight panel. The DCE presented hypothetical treatment options including oral acute, oral preventive, and injectable preventive medications. Six attributes (method of delivery, reduction of pain, impact of headaches on daily routines, dosage adjustability, and temporary and persistent side effects) each with three levels were included in the survey. A hierarchical Bayesian model was used to estimate relative attribute importance scores (RAI) for all attributes.

RESULTS

For the 400 participants in the DCE, the most common age bracket was 40-49 years old, and the majority were female (66.75%). RAI estimates indicated that "method of delivery" was the most important attribute for patients (RAI 51.92, SD = 10.20), followed by "reduction of pain when experiencing a headache" (RAI 17.00, SD = 7.74). Oral preventive treatments were preferred over injectable preventive treatments. The qualitative interviews showed that patients prefer oral medications to injectable treatments, and a lack of awareness regarding preventive treatments.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the "method of delivery" was the most important driver of treatment preferences of patients with migraine in Japan, with oral acute medications being preferred. Oral preventive treatments were found to be preferred over injectable treatments. These results may indicate the need for increased education regarding preventive treatments, as well as the need for further development of these treatments.

Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies

The interest in quantifying stated preferences for health and healthcare continues to grow, as does the technology available to support and improve health preference studies. Technological advancements in the last two decades have implications and opportunities for preference researchers designing, administering, analysing, interpreting and applying the results of stated preference surveys. In this paper, we summarise selected technologies and how these can benefit a preference study. We discuss empirical evaluations of the technology in preference research, with examples from health where possible. The technologies reviewed include serious games, virtual reality, eye tracking, innovative formats and decision aids with values clarification components. We conclude with a critical reflection on the benefits and limitations of implementing (often costly) technology alongside stated preference studies.

Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

The emergence of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors offered dyslipidemia patients an alternative to statins for lipid-lowering treatment. Understanding patient and physician preferences for lipid-lowering drugs may promote shared decision-making and improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This study utilized an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess the relative importance (RI) of six attributes related to lipid-lowering drugs, including frequency of administration, mode of administration, reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, risk of myopathy, risk of liver damage, and out-of-pocket monthly cost. Respondents were recruited from dyslipidemia patients and cardiovascular physicians in China. A mixed logit model and latent class analysis were employed to estimate the preference coefficient, marginal willingness to pay (mWTP), and RI of attributes. Ethical approval has been obtained for this study.

RESULTS

A total of 708 patients and 507 physicians participated in the survey. Patients prioritized the 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 23.6%) with 'mode of administration' (RI = 19.2%) and 'frequency of administration' (RI = 18.8%) following closely. Contrarily, physicians prioritized the 'reduction of LDL-C level' (RI = 33.5%), followed by 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 26.0%) and 'risk of myopathy' (RI = 16.1%). Patients placed a higher value on 'frequency of administration' (p < .001) and 'mode of administration' (p < .001) compared to physicians, while physicians valued 'reduction of LDL-C level' (p < .001) and 'risk of myopathy' (p = .012) more than patients. Physicians exhibited higher mWTP than patients for all attributes except frequency and mode of administration. The LCA revealed three distinct patient classes: focus on oral administration, focus on hepatic safety and frequency and focus on hepatic safety and cost. Likewise, three physician classes were identified: frequency-insensitive, efficacy-focused and safety-focused.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy differed between patients and physicians in China. Physicians should take into account patients' preferences and provide personalized treatment when they formulate lipid-lowering treatment plans.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients participated in the questionnaire design process. They engaged in a focus group discussion to determine attributes and levels and also participated in a pilot survey to assess the comprehensibility of the questionnaires. Additionally, patients were involved in the DCE survey to express their preferences. The findings of patient preference for lipid-lowering drug therapy will promote shared decision-making and optimize the treatment regimen.