The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment

Health priorities and treatment preferences of adults with epilepsy: A narrative literature review with a systematic search

The care of people with epilepsy can be complex. Seizure control is a top priority, however there are other important health-related factors that can impact the well-being of a person with epilepsy. Understanding the range of health priorities and treatment preferences is a critical step in facilitating patient-centered care. In this narrative review, we queried four electronic databases with search terms including patient preferences, needs, priorities, and goals. In total, 20 articles met criteria to be included in the review; these included both quantitative and qualitative analyses of patient responses. Key issues identified were a variety of seizure-specific priorities (such as frequency, duration, severity, warning) and non-seizure medical priorities (such as cognition, mood, physical side effects). Support needs (such as psychological support, improved access to health care) and life goals (such as driving, relationships, work) were also prevalent and emphasized. The range of these findings support the importance of querying individual priorities to promote patient-centered care. Additionally, our results demonstrate that non-medical considerations are an important piece of the illness of epilepsy and should be considered in health care encounters as possible to improve patient outcomes and overall well-being.

Development of a rapid screener to elicit patient preferences for antiseizure medication discontinuation

OBJECTIVE

While guidelines encourage individualized discussions of the risks and benefits of antiseizure medication (ASM) withdrawal after a period of seizure-freedom, no formal methods exist for assessing patient preferences. We report the initial development of a rapid patient preferences screener.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study of adults who were ≥1 year seizure-free and seen for epilepsy across three institutions. We reviewed existing questionnaires and adapted three questions measuring core constructs influencing ASM decisions - views about ASMs, driving restrictions, and seizures. We added one additional "global" question, for 4 total questions. Participants rated question clarity and utility from 1 (low) to 7 (high).

RESULTS

Of 32 participants, the median patient age was 46 (interquartile range [IQR] 33-56), with a median 3 years since their last seizure (IQR 2-11). Median responses were: 2 (IQR 1-5) for being bothered by ASMs, 2 (IQR 1-6) for feeling that a driving restriction would be disruptive, and 5 (IQR 4-7) for feeling that another seizure would be serious. Respondents tended to disagree that ASMs are doing more harm than good (median 1, IQR 1-2). Participants rated question clarity (median 6, IQR 6-7) and utility (median 7, IQR 6-7) highly.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the initial development of a pre-visit rapid screener of patient preferences pertinent to ASM withdrawal in well-controlled epilepsy. Patients endorsed the utility of such a screener and provided guidance to improve items. We hope that this work will ultimately improve shared decision-making.

Developing feasible person-centred care alternatives to emergency department responses for adults with epilepsy: a discrete choice analysis mixed-methods study

Background

Calls have been made for paramedics to have some form of care pathway that they could use to safely divert adults with epilepsy away from emergency departments and instigate ambulatory care improvements. Different configurations are possible. To know which to prioritise for implementation/evaluation, there is a need to determine which are acceptable to service users and likely National Health Service-feasible.

Objective(s)

(1) Identify configurations being considered, (2) understand service users' views of them and current provision, (3) identify what sort of care service users want and (4) determine which configuration(s) is considered to achieve optimal balance in meeting users' preference and being National Health Service-feasible.

Design

Service providers were surveyed to address objective 1. Interviews with service users addressed objective 2. Objective 3 was addressed by completing discrete choice experiments. These determined users' care preferences for different seizure scenarios. Objective 4 was addressed by completing 'knowledge exchange' workshops. At these, stakeholders considered the findings on users' stated preferences and judged different pathway configurations against Michie's 'acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, side-effects and equity' feasibility criteria.

Setting

This project took place in England. The survey recruited representatives from neurology and neuroscience centres and from urgent and emergency care providers. For the interviews, recruitment occurred via third-sector support groups. Recruitment for discrete choice experiments occurred via the North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust and public advert. Workshop participants were recruited from neurology and neuroscience centres, urgent and emergency care providers, support groups and commissioning networks.

Participants

Seventy-two services completed the survey. Interviews were conducted with 25 adults with epilepsy (and 5 relatives) who had emergency service contact in the prior 12 months. Discrete choice experiments were completed by 427 adults with epilepsy (and 167 relatives) who had ambulance service contact in the prior 12 months. Workshops were completed with 27 stakeholders.

Results

The survey identified a range of pathway configurations. They differed in where they would take the patient and their potential to instigate ambulatory care improvements. Users had been rarely consulted in designing them. The discrete choice experiments found that users want a configuration of care markedly different to that offered. Across the seizure scenarios, users wanted their paramedic to have access to their medical records; for an epilepsy specialist (e.g. an epilepsy nurse, neurologist) to be available to advise; for their general practitioner to receive a report; for the incident to generate an appointment with an epilepsy specialist; for the care episode to last < 6 hours; and there was a pattern of preference to avoid conveyance to emergency departments and stay where they were. Stakeholders judged this configuration to be National Health Service-feasible within 5-10 years, with some elements being immediately deployable.

Limitations

The discrete choice experiment sample was broadly representative, but those reporting recent contact with an epilepsy specialist were over-represented.

Conclusions

Users state they want a configuration of care that is markedly different to current provision. The configuration they prefer was, with support and investment, judged to likely be National Health Service-feasible. The preferred configuration should now be developed and evaluated to determine its actual deliverability and efficacy.

Study registration

The study is registered as researchregistry4723.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/62) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 24. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Developing an alternative care pathway for emergency ambulance responses for adults with epilepsy: A Discrete Choice Experiment to understand which configuration service users prefer. Part of the COLLABORATE project

INTRODUCTION

To identify service users' preferences for an alternative care pathway for adults with epilepsy presenting to the ambulance service.

METHODS

Extensive formative work (qualitative, survey and knowledge exchange) informed the design of a stated preference discrete choice experiment (DCE). This hypothetical survey was hosted online and consisted of 12 binary choices of alternative care pathways described in terms of: the paramedic's access to medical records/ 'care plan', what happens next (described in terms of conveyance), time, availability of epilepsy specialists today, general practitioner (GP) notification and future contact with epilepsy specialists. DCE scenarios were described as: (i) typical seizure at home. (ii) typical seizure in public, (iii) atypical seizure. Respondents were recruited by a regional English ambulance service and by national public adverts. Participants were randomised to complete 2 of the 3 DCEs.

RESULTS

People with epilepsy (PWE; n = 427) and friends/family (n = 167) who completed the survey were representative of the target population. PWE preferred paramedics to have access to medical records, non-conveyance, to avoid lengthy episodes of care, availability of epilepsy specialists today, GP notification, and contact with epilepsy specialists within 2-3 weeks. Significant others (close family members or friends) preferred PWE experiencing an atypical seizure to be conveyed to an Urgent Treatment Centre and preferred shorter times. Optimal configuration of services from service users' perspective far out ranked current practice (rank 230/288 possible configurations).

DISCUSSION

Preferences differ to current practice but have minimal variation by seizure type or stakeholder. Further work on feasibility of these pathways in England, and potentially beyond, is required.

Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Best-worst scaling preferences among patients with well-controlled epilepsy: Pilot results

Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a 'warmup' question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one 'inconsistent choice' for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though 'inconsistent choices' represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. 'Inconsistent' responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single 'seizure' category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

Key Drivers and Facilitators of the Choice to Use mHealth Technology in People With Neurological Conditions: Observational Study

Background

There is increasing interest in the potential uses of mobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as wearable biosensors, as supplements for the care of people with neurological conditions. However, adherence is low, especially over long periods. If people are to benefit from these resources, we need a better long-term understanding of what influences patient engagement. Previous research suggests that engagement is moderated by several barriers and facilitators, but their relative importance is unknown.

Objective

To determine preferences and the relative importance of user-generated factors influencing engagement with mHealth technologies for 2 common neurological conditions with a relapsing-remitting course: multiple sclerosis (MS) and epilepsy.

Methods

In a discrete choice experiment, people with a diagnosis of MS (n=141) or epilepsy (n=175) were asked to select their preferred technology from a series of 8 vignettes with 4 characteristics: privacy, clinical support, established benefit, and device accuracy; each of these characteristics was greater or lower in each vignette. These characteristics had previously been emphasized by people with MS and or epilepsy as influencing engagement with technology. Mixed multinomial logistic regression models were used to establish which characteristics were most likely to affect engagement. Subgroup analyses explored the effects of demographic factors (such as age, gender, and education), acceptance of and familiarity with mobile technology, neurological diagnosis (MS or epilepsy), and symptoms that could influence motivation (such as depression).

Results

Analysis of the responses to the discrete choice experiment validated previous qualitative findings that a higher level of privacy, greater clinical support, increased perceived benefit, and better device accuracy are important to people with a neurological condition. Accuracy was perceived as the most important factor, followed by privacy. Clinical support was the least valued of the attributes. People were prepared to trade a modest amount of accuracy to achieve an improvement in privacy, but less likely to make this compromise for other factors. The type of neurological condition (epilepsy or MS) did not influence these preferences, nor did the age, gender, or mental health status of the participants. Those who were less accepting of technology were the most concerned about privacy and those with a lower level of education were prepared to trade accuracy for more clinical support.

Conclusions

For people with neurological conditions such as epilepsy and MS, accuracy (ie, the ability to detect symptoms) is of the greatest interest. However, there are individual differences, and people who are less accepting of technology may need far greater reassurance about data privacy. People with lower levels of education value greater clinician involvement. These patient preferences should be considered when designing mHealth technologies.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Relative importance of clinical outcomes and safety risks of antiseizure medication monotherapy for patients and physicians: Discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences in real-world study "VOTE"

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to elicit patients' preferences for attributes characterizing antiseizure medication (ASM) monotherapy options before treatment consultation, and to explore the trade-offs patients consider between treatment efficacy and risks of side effects. Further objectives were to explore how treatment consultation may affect patient preferences, to elicit physicians' preferences in selecting treatment, and to compare patient and physician preferences for treatment.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study (EP0076; VOTE) included adults with focal seizures requiring a change in their ASM monotherapy. Patients completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey before and after treatment consultation. Physicians completed a similar survey after the consultation. The DCE comprised 12 choices between two hypothetical treatments defined by seven attributes. The conditional relative importance of each attribute was calculated.

RESULTS

Three hundred ten patients (mean [SD] age = 46.8 [18.3] years, 52.3% female) were enrolled from eight European countries, of whom 305 completed the survey before consultation and 273 completed the survey before and after consultation. Overall, this preference study in patients who intended to receive a new ASM monotherapy suggests that patient preferences were ordered as expected, with better outcomes being preferred to worse outcomes; patients preferred a higher chance of seizure freedom, lower risk of developing clinical depression, and fewer severe adverse events; avoiding moderate-to-severe "trouble thinking clearly" was more important than avoiding any other side effect. There were qualitative differences in what patients and physicians considered to be the most important aspects of treatment for patients; compared with patients, physicians had a qualitatively stronger preference for greater chance of seizure freedom and avoiding personality changes. Patients' preference weights were qualitatively similar before and after treatment consultation.

SIGNIFICANCE

For patients, seizure freedom and avoiding trouble thinking clearly were the most important treatment attributes. Physicians and patients may differ in the emphasis they place on specific attributes.

Patient Preference for Antiepileptic Drugs Treatment in China: Evidence From the Discrete Choice Experiment

Objective: Explore Chinese patients' risk-benefit preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) treatment through the discrete choice experiment (DCE).

Method: Six attributes including the efficacy of AEDs, adverse reactions (digestive system, neuropsychic systems, and the effects on the fetus), dosing frequency and drug costs (to estimate patient WTP) were included in the DCE questionnaire based on results collected from literature reviews, expert consultation, and patient survey. The alternative-specific conditional logit model was used to analyze patient preference and WTP for each attribute and its level and to assess the sociodemographic impact and clinical characteristics.

Results: A total of 151 valid questionnaires were collected. The result shows that five out of the six attributes are significant, except the dosing frequency. Among the six attributes, the efficacy of AEDs (10.0; 95% CI 8.9–11.1) is mostly concerned by patients, followed by the effects of AEDs on the fetus (8.9; 95% CI 7.7–10.1), duration of side effects in the neuropsychic system (4.9; 95% CI 3.7–6.0) and adverse reactions of the digestive system (3.2; 95% CI 1.5–4.2). The patients surveyed are willing to spend ¥ 1,246 (95% CI, ¥ 632- ¥ 1,861) per month to ensure 100% seizure control, and ¥ 1,112 (95% CI, ¥ 586–¥ 1,658) to reduce the risk of the drug affecting the fetus to 3%. Besides, it was found that personal characteristics including the intention for conception and AEDs treatment regimens have statistical significance.

Conclusion: Improving the drug's efficacy and reducing its side effects are predominant considerations for patients with epilepsy in China, especially for those who are concerned about the seizure control and the drug effect on the fetus. This finding is useful to physicians and can encourage shared decision-making between the patients and their doctors in the clinic.

What really matters? A mixed methods study of treatment preferences and priorities among people with epilepsy in the UK

The widening range of treatment options for epilepsy, and their potential outcomes, mean decisions about treatment for people with epilepsy (PWE) are often complex. While antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) represent the mainstay of treatment, other potential nondrug interventions are gaining in importance. These treatments all have the potential for harming those using them, as well as bringing benefits. This study examined the views and experiences of PWE about a range of treatment options. We used both qualitative and quantitative approaches - a series of depth-narrative interviews, followed by a large-scale survey. Treatment options and healthcare priorities deemed important by at least 10% of interview participants were then addressed as a series of statements in the follow-on survey questionnaire. Quantitative responses supported healthcare priorities identified through the qualitative interviews. The key goal of treatment among study participants was to be able to live 'a normal life'. Important physical, psychological, and life benefits of treatment were identified - most being the direct consequence of improved seizure control. One psychological benefit, reduced worry, was also identified as an important treatment goal. All participants viewed AEDs as appropriate first-line treatment; and since adverse effects of AEDs had implications for individual levels of daily function and wellbeing, their appropriate management was considered important. In contrast, surgery was almost always regarded as the treatment of last resort. Despite lack of research evidence supporting their use, participants were interested in complementary therapies as adjunctive treatment and a means of coping with having epilepsy, with yoga and meditation of particular interest. An important finding was the desire for targeted services to help with memory problems, as was the call to increase availability of psychological/counseling services. Our findings emphasize the importance of providing treatment responsive to the life context of individual patients. They highlight not only the level of demand for specific treatment options, but also the need for high-quality evidence to support future investment in their provision.

Patient-Focused Drug Development Methods for Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study Using a Discrete Choice Experiment for Antiepileptic Drugs

Regulatory decisions may be enhanced by incorporating patient preferences for drug benefit and harms. This study demonstrates a method of weighting clinical evidence by patients’ benefit–risk preferences. Preference weights, derived from discrete choice experiments, were applied to clinical trial data to estimate the expected utility of alternative drugs. In a case study, the rank ordering of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as indicated from clinical studies, was compared with ordering based on weighting clinical evidence by patients’ preferences. A statistically significant change in rank ordering of AEDs was observed for women of childbearing potential who were prescribed monotherapy for generalized or unclassified epilepsy. Rank ordering inferred from trial data, valproate > topiramate > lamotrigine, was reversed. Modeling the expected utility of drugs might address the need to use more systematic, methodologically sound approaches to collect patient input that can further inform regulatory decision making.

Patient versus neurologist preferences: A discrete choice experiment for antiepileptic drug therapies

OBJECTIVE

This assessment was conducted to quantify and compare patient and neurologist preferences regarding antiepileptic drug (AED) attributes for treating epilepsy.

METHODS

Patients with epilepsy (≥18years, treated with AEDs) and neurologists were recruited from nationally representative US panels to complete an online survey that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Participants chose between two hypothetical AEDs, characterized by six attributes in the DCE, which included 1) level of seizure control/reduction; 2) dosing frequency, 3) diminished coordination and balance, 4) psychiatric issues, 5) diminished energy level, and 6) dietary restrictions. The Sawtooth Software Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) System for CBC Analysis was used to estimate treatment attribute ranking and weighting.

RESULTS

Of the 720 respondents (518 patients and 202 neurologists), both patients and neurologists ranked seizure control as the most important attribute (rank 1) and dietary restrictions as the least important attribute (rank 6). However, seizure control had a significantly greater weighting in neurologists' decision-making than among patients (45% vs 32%, p<0.005). On the other hand, patients considered the risks of psychiatric adverse effects (19% vs 15%), diminished coordination and balance (16% vs 10%), and fatigue or diminished energy (13% vs 11%) as significantly more important (p<0.05) than did neurologists.

CONCLUSION

Patients and neurologists had similar preference ranking order, with seizure reduction being ranked the most important attribute. However, neurologist treatment preferences were significantly more influenced by seizure reduction while patient preferences were significantly more influenced by adverse effects that may impact their quality of life. Understanding how patient and neurologist perspectives differ should encourage dialog to communicate the potential risks and benefits of AED therapy and assist in the shared decision-making process.

Evaluation of psoriasis patients' attitudes toward benefit-risk and therapeutic trade-offs in their choice of treatments

OBJECTIVE

Treatment options for psoriasis offer trade-offs in terms of efficacy, convenience, and risk of adverse events. We evaluated patients' preferences with respect to benefit-risk in the treatment of psoriasis.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted in adults from the UK with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using an orthogonal design with 32 hypothetical choice sets. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two surveys with 16 choice sets. Patients' preferences were investigated with respect to the following attributes: reduction in body surface area affected by psoriasis, treatment administration (frequency and mode of delivery), short-term diarrhea or nausea risk, and 10-year risk of developing melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer, tuberculosis, or serious infections. A mixed effects logistic regression model generated relative preferences between treatment profiles.

RESULTS

Participants (N=292) had a strong preference to avoid increased risk of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44 per 5% increased 10-year risk) and increased risks of tuberculosis and serious infections (both ORs: 0.73 per 5% increased 10-year risk) and preferred once-weekly to twice-daily tablets (OR: 0.76) and weekly (OR: 0.56) or fortnightly (OR: 0.65) injections. Participants preferred avoiding treatments that may cause diarrhea or nausea in the first 2 weeks (OR: 0.87 per 5% increase) and preferred treatments that effectively resolved plaque lesions (OR: 0.93 for each palm area still affected).

CONCLUSION

All attributes were significant predictors of choice. Patients' preference research complements clinical trial data by providing insight regarding the relative weight of efficacy, tolerability, and other factors for patients when making treatment choices.

Epilepsy and brain tumors

Seizures are common in patients with brain tumors, and epilepsy can significantly impact patient quality of life. Therefore, a thorough understanding of rates and predictors of seizures, and the likelihood of seizure freedom after resection, is critical in the treatment of brain tumors. Among all tumor types, seizures are most common with glioneuronal tumors (70-80%), particularly in patients with frontotemporal or insular lesions. Seizures are also common in individuals with glioma, with the highest rates of epilepsy (60-75%) observed in patients with low-grade gliomas located in superficial cortical or insular regions. Approximately 20-50% of patients with meningioma and 20-35% of those with brain metastases also suffer from seizures. After tumor resection, approximately 60-90% are rendered seizure-free, with most favorable seizure outcomes seen in individuals with glioneuronal tumors. Gross total resection, earlier surgical therapy, and a lack of generalized seizures are common predictors of a favorable seizure outcome. With regard to anticonvulsant medication selection, evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of focal epilepsy should be followed, and individual patient factors should also be considered, including patient age, sex, organ dysfunction, comorbidity, or cotherapy. As concomitant chemotherapy commonly forms an essential part of glioma treatment, enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants should be avoided when possible. Seizure freedom is the ultimate goal in the treatment of brain tumor patients with epilepsy, given the adverse effects of seizures on quality of life.

Pharmacogenetic testing prior to carbamazepine treatment of epilepsy: patients' and physicians' preferences for testing and service delivery

AIM

Pharmacogenetic studies have identified the presence of the HLA-A*31:01 allele as a predictor of cutaneous adverse drugs reactions (ADRs) to carbamazepine. This study aimed to ascertain the preferences of patients and clinicians to inform carbamazepine pharmacogenetic testing services.

METHODS

Attributes of importance to people with epilepsy and neurologists were identified through interviews and from published sources. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were conducted in 82 people with epilepsy and 83 neurologists. Random-effects logit regression models were used to determine the importance of the attributes and direction of effect.

RESULTS

In the patient DCE, all attributes (seizure remission, reduction in seizure frequency, memory problems, skin rash and rare, severe ADRs) were significant. The estimated utility of testing was greater, at 0.52 (95% CI 0.19, 1.00) than not testing at 0.33 (95% CI -0.07, 0.81). In the physician DCE, cost, inclusion in the British National Formulary, coverage, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) were significant. Marginal rates of substitution indicated that neurologists were willing to pay £5.87 for a 1 percentage point increase in NPV and £3.99 for a 1 percentage point increase in PPV.

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of both patients' and clinicians' perspectives represents an important contribution to the understanding of preferences towards pharmacogenetic testing prior to initiating carbamazepine. Both groups identified different attributes but had generally consistent preferences. Patients' acceptance of a decrease in treatment benefit for a reduced chance of severe ADRs adds support for the implementation of HLA-A*31:01 testing in routine practice.

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.

How does patients' quality of life guide their preferences regarding aspects of asthma therapy?: a patient-preference study using discrete-choice experiment methodology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Previous work has suggested that people with poor health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) as a result of asthma are willing to pay the most for successful therapy. There is also evidence that preferences are an important influence on adherence to therapy. We report a patient preference study using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) of patients with asthma in Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK.

METHODS

The DCE survey included different attributes of asthma therapy (days with symptoms, days needing reliever medication, asthma attacks [none, attack that does not require doctor/emergency room {ER} visit, attack that requires doctor/ER visit], risk of adverse effects, number of preventer inhalers, and monthly out-of-pocket costs). Participants indicated which attribute combinations they preferred. The questionnaire survey included the mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (mAQLQ). The validity of the choice experiment has been supported by two pilot studies conducted in the UK. Preferences and WTP were estimated using a random effects probit model. Symptom days and asthma attack attributes were segmented by mAQLQ score.

RESULTS

Demographic and clinical data were compared between the three country samples (UK, n = 124; Spain, n = 86; the Netherlands, n = 269). All study attributes were independently significant predictors of choice. People were willing to pay €35 per month to avoid a day with symptoms, and €109 per month (year 2005 values) to avoid experiencing asthma attacks that required emergency visits to their doctor or hospital. People with the worst HR-QOL were willing to pay the least to avoid days with symptoms and asthma attacks that required visits to their doctor/ER. This was not an income-related effect.

CONCLUSION

Patients who reported higher HR-QOL were willing to pay more to avoid days with symptoms and asthma attacks that required visits to their doctor/ER. Hypotheses were explored to explain this effect. It is possible that people with the least impairment of HR-QOL place the greatest value on avoiding the effects of asthma and so are most willing to alter their behavior. People with the worst HR-QOL may be exhibiting a response shift type of effect whereby their internal values are shifted down by the burden of their disease. These findings may help to illuminate why there are differences in asthma treatment adherence.

Patients' preferences for treatment outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs: a conjoint analysis

To understand the relative importance of the outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and the willingness of patients with epilepsy to accept therapeutic trade-offs between seizure control and tolerability, we administered a Web-enabled, choice-format conjoint survey to patients with a self-reported physician diagnosis of epilepsy and symptoms of partial seizures. Patients answered nine choice questions to evaluate treatment outcomes of two different hypothetical add-on AEDs. Patients were first asked to choose the better of the two medicines and then asked a follow-up question about whether or not they would add the selected AED to their current treatment regimen. Our study demonstrated that patients with epilepsy consider seizure reduction to be the top priority when ranking it against the reduction or elimination of side effects. This study aids in better understanding of patients' AED treatment preferences and may aid in management of epilepsy.

Characteristics and treatment of seizures in patients with high-grade glioma: a review

High-grade gliomas (HGGs), including anaplastic astrocytoma and glioblastoma multiforme, are the most common primary brain tumors, and are often associated with seizures. Seizure control is a critical but often underappreciated goal in the treatment of patients harboring these malignant lesions. Patients with HGG who also have medically intractable seizures should be considered for a palliative resection guided by electrocorticography and functional mapping. Antiepileptic drugs remain the mainstay of seizure treatment in HGG, and antiepileptic medication should be started after a tumor-related seizure, but should not be used prophylactically in the absence of seizure activity.

Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare direct and indirect willingness to pay (WTP) elicitation methods in terms of feasibility, reliability, and comparability. The application is obstetrics, where always both a mother's and a child's health are at stake.

METHODS

An open-ended contingent valuation method (CVM) as a direct WTP elicitation method, and the discrete choice experiment (DCE) as an indirect WTP elicitation method. Vignettes to be valued were based on clinical patient data. Participants were 88 laypersons who received their questionnaires by postal mail.

RESULTS

The DCE task was completed faster (p=0.006) and was regarded easier (p<0.001) than the CVM task. Test-retest for CVM was substantial (ICC=0.76), and for DCE moderate (k=0.49). Female sex (p<0.001), age≥50 years (p=0.013), higher income (p<0.001), and higher education (p<0.001) were associated with higher WTP. Correlation between CVM and DCE was 0.79 (Kendall's Tau-b; p<0.001). The implied WTP as derived with DCE was between 2.3 and 10.2 times higher than with CVM. The relationship between the WTPs was linear.

CONCLUSION

It is yet unclear what lies behind the numbers of DCE. DCE has no methodological benefits over the conventional CVM when eliciting WTP for complex health outcomes in obstetrics.

Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment

In Spain, various treatments are available to prevent osteoporotic fractures. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to investigate the importance of different treatment aspects and its influence on patients' preferences. All attributes included as type and place of drug administration as well as costs showed to be significant predictors of choice. Spanish osteoporosis patients have well-defined preferences and accept trade-offs among attributes.

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to identify patient preferences for different aspects of osteoporosis treatments in Spain.

METHODS

Main attributes of severe osteoporosis treatments were determined by literature review and consultations with nurses. The discrete choice experiment included three attributes: type of drug administration, place of administration, plus a cost attribute in order to estimate willingness to pay for improvements in attribute levels. A pilot study with 50 patients was performed to identify the areas of misunderstanding. One hundred sixty-six patients with a diagnosis of osteoporosis and severe osteoporosis were presented with pairs of hypothetical treatment profiles with different type of administration levels, places of administration and costs. Questions to collect socio-demographic and disease-related treatment data were also included. Data were analysed using a random effects probit model.

RESULTS

All attributes had the expected polarity and were significant predictors of choice. Patients were willing to pay 183 euro/month to have a subcutaneous injection once per day rather than an intravenous injection once per year. Patients with osteoporosis were willing to pay 121 euro/month to have medical support when administering the drug treatment at home rather than being admitted several hours to a hospital for drug administration.

CONCLUSION

Spanish osteoporosis patients have well-defined preferences among treatment attributes and are willing to accept trade-offs among attributes. Participants indicated that they are willing to accept self medication with medical support rather than being hospitalised for several hours. The perspective of the patients should be taken into account when making treatment decisions.

Retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of first-line antiepileptic drugs for generalized onset and unclassified epileptic seizures in Chinese children

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Based on the time until treatment failure, we retrospectively analyzed 389 children to compare the long-term effectiveness of first-line antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in children with generalized onset or unclassified epileptic seizures.

METHODS

Analyses were based on time until treatment failure and time until remission.

RESULTS

In terms of time until treatment failure, the failure rates of topiramate and carbamazepine were higher than that of sodium valproate (p < 0.05). For time until 1-year remission, sodium valproate was found to be significantly better than either topiramate or carbamazepine (p < 0.05). For the subgroup with generalized onset epilepsy, sodium valproate was much better than either topiramate or carbamazepine (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between topiramate and carbamazepine (p = 0.319). For unclassified epileptic seizures, no significant differences were found among the three AEDs.

CONCLUSION

Sodium valproate should be the drug of choice for patients with children with generalized onset, and no significant differences were found among the three AEDs in unclassified epileptic seizures.

Seizures in patients with glioma treated with phenytoin and levetiracetam

OBJECT

Second-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are increasingly used in the care of patients with glioma. There is little data on how this practice compares with the use of traditional AEDs in this population. This noninferiority analysis compares seizure outcomes and side effects in patients with glioma treated with phenytoin and levetiracetam monotherapy.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of 500 consecutive patients with glioma who were treated in clinical trials from 2001 to 2008 at 3 Mayo Clinic campuses. To be eligible for the study, these patients had to have had at least 1 clinical seizure and to have undergone follow-up for at least 6 months. Seizure outcomes, defined by the occurrence of a second seizure, time to second seizure, and seizure frequency, along with AED side effects, were compared between cohorts treated with phenytoin or levetiracetam

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were identified, 25 treated with phenytoin and 51 with levetiracetam. Sixty-four percent of the patients had a Grade 4 astrocytoma. There was no difference in seizure outcome between the phenytoin and levetiracetam groups when comparing time to second seizure (p=0.584), second seizure rates (p=0.561), and average seizures per month (p=0.776). When adjusting for age, sex, type of seizure, type of glioma, and dosage using univariate and multivariate models, there were no differences between the treatment groups and none of these covariates were statistically significant for explaining the second seizure rates between treatment groups (all p values>0.05). The incidence of side effects in the levetiracetam group was 6% versus 20% in the phenytoin group (p=0.106). Additionally, 36% of the patients in the phenytoin group had dose adjustments unrelated to breakthrough seizures compared with only 10% in the levetiracetam group (p=0.010)

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, patients with glioma treated with levetiracetam and phenytoin had similar seizure control. Patients treated with levetiracetam experienced fewer side effects and required fewer nonseizure-related dose adjustments than patients treated with phenytoin. Levetiracetam is a safe, effective, and preferred alternative for seizure management in patients with glioma.

Patients' preferences for scoliosis brace treatment: a discrete choice experiment

STUDY DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the reduction in the risk of surgery that scoliosis patients would require in order to consider brace treatment as acceptable, and to elicit the trade-offs individuals make between characteristics of brace treatment.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The effectiveness of brace treatment in idiopathic scoliosis patients has not been established in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment with a brace can be quite bothersome. Patients' preferences for brace treatment are unknown. Insight into patients' preferences for (characteristics of) brace treatment will be useful for future trials and for the development of braces that may optimize compliance with brace treatment.

METHODS

A total of 197 patients who had completed treatment (brace and/or surgery) for scoliosis were approached for the study, of which 135 gave informed consent. A discrete choice experiment was designed in which patients had to choose between hypothetical brace treatment profiles that differed in following 4 treatment attributes: effectiveness, visibility, discomfort, and treatment duration. A multinomial logit model was used to analyze the relative importance of these attributes. Subgroup analyses were conducted for brace-only, brace-surgery, and surgery-only patients.

RESULTS

The response rate was 86% (116/135). All treatment attributes proved to be important for patients' choices. All subgroups were prepared to initiate treatment with a Boston brace if the brace would reduce the need for surgery by 53%. Risk reductions in a range of 32% to 74% were required for acceptance of a treatment duration of 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Scoliosis patients stated to be prepared to undergo brace treatment only if it provides sizeable reduction of the risk of surgery. Effectiveness and discomfort in wearing a brace were the most important determinants of the choices. These results are important if RCTs would conclusively establish that bracing is effective, and show directions for the further technical development of braces to increase the compliance with brace treatment.

Patient-perceived risk associated with epilepsy and its medication treatment

Regardless of the expert advice of health care practitioners, it is ultimately the patient's decision how to best manage his or her condition. This decision can be influenced by the perceived risk of both the disease and its treatment. The objective of this study was to develop a survey to evaluate perceived risk associated with epilepsy and its medication treatment. Risk was evaluated in five domains: performance, financial, social, psychological, and physical. A 40-item patient-perceived risk questionnaire was developed and administered to patients at one university-affiliated epilepsy clinic. Pearson correlation and regression analysis was used to identify significant components of overall perceived risk. A total of 64 patients completed the survey. Performance and physical risk significantly explained 34% of the variance in overall perceived risk associated with epilepsy. The overall perceived risk associated with the treatment of epilepsy was explained by performance, physical, psychological, and social risks (r(2)=0.386). Thus, the treatment of epilepsy poses more challenges for patients to maintain their lifestyle than the disease itself.

Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment

Active case finding for osteoporosis is used to identify patients at high fracture risk who may benefit from preventive drug treatment. We investigated the relative weight that women place on various aspects of preventive drugs in a discrete choice experiment. Our patients said they were prepared to take preventive drugs even if side effects were expected.

INTRODUCTION

Active case finding for osteoporosis is used to identify patients who may benefit from preventive drugs. We aimed to elicit the relative weight that patients place on various aspects of preventive drug treatment for osteoporosis.

METHODS

We designed a discrete choice experiment, in which women had to choose between drug profiles that differed in five treatment attributes: effectiveness, side effects (nausea), total treatment duration, route of drug administration, and out-of-pocket costs. We included 120 women aged 60 years and older, identified by osteoporosis case finding in 34 general practices in the Netherlands. A conditional logit regression model was used to analyse the relative importance of treatment attributes, the trade-offs that women were willing to make between attributes, and their willingness to pay.

RESULTS

All treatment attributes proved to be important for women's choices. A reduction of the relative 10-year risk of hip fracture by 40% or more by the drug was considered to compensate for nausea as a side effect. Women were prepared to pay an out-of-pocket contribution for the currently available drug treatment (bisphosphonate) if the fracture risk reduction was at least 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Women identified by active osteoporosis case finding stated to be prepared to take preventive drugs, even if side effects were expected and some out-of-pocket contribution was required.

Psychological well-being of people with epilepsy in Norway

The subjective well-being of people with epilepsy has been studied extensively, but only sparingly in Norway. In 2005, members of the Norwegian Epilepsy Association responded to a short version of the Hopkins Symptom Check List ("psychological distress") and to a version of the Self-Anchoring Striving Scale, also termed the Cantril Ladder ("life satisfaction"). In this article, the relationships between responses to the two questionnaires (the two outcome variables) and seizure frequency, medication side effects, comorbidity, and surgery, as well as demographic variables such as age, sex, marital status, occupational status, education, and place of residence, are addressed. The analyses demonstrate clear effects of seizure frequency (P<0.001) and medication side effects (P<0.001) on both outcome variables. People with no comorbidity (no additional diagnoses) reported less psychological distress (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with life (P<0.05) than those who reported additional diagnoses. The factor having the strongest impact on the psychological well-being of these people was medication side effects.

Eliciting patient preferences for hormonal therapy options in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer

Treatment choices for metastatic prostate cancer are complex and can involve men balancing survival versus quality of life. The present study aims to elicit patient preferences with respect to the attributes of treatments for metastatic prostate cancer through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire. Men with recently diagnosed localized prostate cancer were asked to envisage that they had metastatic disease when completing a survey. As expected, men with prostate cancer placed considerable importance on gains in survival; however, avoiding side effects of treatment was also clearly important. Survival gains should be considered alongside side effects when discussing treatment options in metastatic disease.