Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26259849›Full record

ArticleThe patient2016

Patient Preferences for Injectable Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Christine Poulos, Elizabeth Kinter, Jui-Chen Yang, John F P Bridges, Joshua Posner, Anthony T Reder

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
26.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improvement and maintenance of clinical outcome assessments in atopic dermatitis with amlitelimab.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Comparison of preferences of healthcare professionals and MS patients for attributes of disease-modifying drugs: A best-worst scaling.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Christine PoulosRTI Health Solutions, 200 Park Offices Drive, Research Triangle Park, PO Box 12194, Durham, NC, 27709, USA. cpoulos@rti.org.
Elizabeth KinterBiogen, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jui-Chen YangPacific Economic Research, LLC, Bellevue, WA, USA.
John F P BridgesJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Joshua PosnerRTI Health Solutions, 200 Park Offices Drive, Research Triangle Park, PO Box 12194, Durham, NC, 27709, USA.
Anthony T RederUniversity of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bellevue Hospital Center · USBiogen (United States) · USJohns Hopkins University · USRTI Health Solutions · USUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivePatients' perceptions and experiences of medication efficacy, medication adverse events, dosing frequency, and dosing complexity have been found to influence adherence to injectable disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this study was to quantify patient preferences for features of injectable DMTs for MS.

methodsAdult patients in the United States (US) with a self-reported diagnosis of MS completed an online discrete-choice experiment survey to assess preference for a number of features of a hypothetical injectable DMT. Patients chose hypothetical treatments in paired comparisons, where each treatment was described by features or attributes, including the number of years until disability progression, the number of relapses in the next 4 years, injection time, the frequency of injections, the occurrence of flu-like symptoms (FLS), and severity of injection-site reactions. Random-parameters logit regression parameters were used to calculate preference weights of attribute levels and the relative importance of changes in treatment features.

resultsOf the 205 patients who completed the survey, 192 provided sufficient data for analysis. The results indicated a broad range of tradeoffs that patients would be willing to make. With regard to this, the relative importance of an improvement in the number of years until disability progression from 1 to 2 (i.e., vertical distance between preference weights for these attribute levels) was 0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5-1.2], the relative importance of this change was approximately equivalent to that of an improvement from 12 injections per month to two (mean 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.2), or approximately equivalent to a decrease from four to one relapses in the next 4 years (mean 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.2), or FLS 3 days after every injection to 3 days after some injections (mean 1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.4).

conclusionsThese results suggest that an improvement in treatment efficacy may be as important as a reduction in injection frequency or a reduction in some adverse events for patients who self-administer injectable DMTs for MS. Understanding the preferences of patients who use injectable treatments will inform the development of such treatments, which may in turn improve patient medication adherence and well-being.

Indexed as

AdultChoice BehaviorDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansInjections, SubcutaneousInternetMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisPatient PreferenceSelf AdministrationSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26259849
PMCPMC4796329
OpenAlexW1187117804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.