Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35918108›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Patient preferences for atopic dermatitis medications in the UK, France and Spain: a discrete choice experiment.

Caitlin Thomas, Afaf Raibouaa, Andreas Wollenberg, Jean-Philippe Capron, Nicolas Krucien, Hayley Karn, Tommi Tervonen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [Biologics and infections: treat and prevent].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. How to Understand Personalized Medicine in Atopic Dermatitis Nowadays?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Caitlin ThomasEvidera, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2314-714X
Afaf RaibouaaEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Andreas WollenbergDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jean-Philippe CapronEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Nicolas KrucienEvidera, London, UK.
Hayley KarnEvidera, London, UK.
Tommi TervonenEvidera, London, UK tommi.tervonen@evidera.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7303-500X
EVRAZ (United Kingdom) · GBEli Lilly (United States) · USLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to quantify patient preferences for efficacy, safety and convenience features of atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments. DESIGN AND

settingOnline discrete choice experiment survey.

participantsAdults in the UK, France and Spain who had used AD treatments during the past 2 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferences for attributes were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Willingness to make trade-offs was expressed as the maximum acceptable decrease (MAD) in the probability of achieving clear/almost clear skin at week 16.

resultsThe survey was completed by 404 patients (44.1±12.0 years; 65% women; 64% moderate/severe eczema). Most patients (68%) had no prior experience of using self-injectable treatments for AD or any other illness. Participants most valued increasing the chance of achieving a meaningful reduction in itch at week 16 from 20% to 50%, followed by reducing the risks of serious infections from 6% to 0% and of eye inflammation from 20% to 0%. Participants were willing to accept a decrease in the possibility of achieving clear/almost clear skin to obtain a treatment that can be paused (MAD=24.1%), requires occasional check-ups (MAD=16.1%) or no check-ups (MAD=20.9%) over frequent check-ups, is administered as a one time per day or two times per day oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks (MAD=16.6%), has a 2-day over 2-week onset of action (MAD=11.3%), and can be used for flare management (MAD=5.8%).

conclusionsAlthough patients with AD most valued treatment benefits and risks, they were willing to tolerate reduced efficacy to obtain a rapid onset, oral administration, less frequent monitoring and a treatment that can be paused. Understanding patients' preferences for AD therapies, including new targeted therapies, can aid shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and support health technology assessments.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicPatient PreferenceAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleFranceHumansMaleSpainUnited Kingdomdermatologyeczemahealth economicstherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID35918108
PMCPMC9351316
OpenAlexW4289444004

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.