Get access

Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: impact of treatment experience

Authors


  • Conflict of interest
    Ms Schaarschmidt received financial support for participation in conferences from Abbott. Dr Schmieder conducted clinical trials for Abbott and Wyeth/Pfizer and received support for conferences from Wyeth/Pfizer. Prof. Goebeler served as investigator for Abbott and Wyeth/Pfizer; gave presentations for Abbott, LEO Pharma, Merck Serono and Wyeth/Pfizer, and received support for conferences from Abbott, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD and Wyeth/Pfizer. Prof. Goerdt was supported for conferences from Abbott, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Merck Serono, MSD and Wyeth/Pfizer. Dr Peitsch served as investigator for Abbott and Wyeth/Pfizer; obtained lecture fees from Abbott and Janssen-Cilag and received support for conferences from Abbott, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, MSD and Wyeth/Pfizer. Mr Umar and Dr Terris have no conflict of interest to declare. The study presented here was not supported by pharmaceutical companies.

  • Funding sources
    None.

W.K. Peitsch. E-mail: wiebke.ludwig@umm.de

Abstract

Background  Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments can impact treatment satisfaction and adherence and may therefore influence clinical outcome.

Objective  To assess the impact of treatment experience (satisfaction with current treatment, number of prior visits, disease duration, number of preceding therapies and currently prescribed treatment modalities) on treatment preferences.

Methods  A computer-based conjoint analysis experiment was conducted to analyse preferences of patients with moderate or severe psoriasis (n = 163) treated at a German University Medical Center for outcome (probability, magnitude and duration of benefit; probability, severity and reversibility of side effects) and process attributes (location, frequency, duration, delivery method, individual cost) of psoriasis treatments. Relative importance scores (RIS) were calculated for each attribute and compared using anova, post hoc test and multivariate regression analysis.

Results  Participants with longer disease duration attached significantly greater importance to duration of benefit (β = 0.206, P = 0.018), whereas participants on oral therapy were more concerned about magnitude of benefit by trend (β = 0.218, P = 0.058). Participants receiving injectables not only set higher value to probability of benefit (RIS = 32.80 vs. 21.89, P = 0.025) but also to treatment location (RIS = 44.74 vs. 23.03, P = 0.011), delivery method (RIS = 43.75 vs. 19.29, P = 0.019), treatment frequency (RIS = 31.24 vs. 16.89, P = 0.005) and duration (RIS = 32.54 vs. 16.57, P = 0.003) when compared with others. Treatment satisfaction was significantly higher in participants on infusions or injections compared with those on phototherapy and mere topical therapy.

Conclusions  Treatment preferences may change over time course and with treatment experience. Participants on injectables attach great importance to efficiency and convenience of therapies, and are highly satisfied with their treatment.

Ancillary