Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37724313›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

Patients' Preferences for Adjunctive Parkinson's Disease Treatments: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Michael Serbin, Connie Marras, Carol Mansfield, Colton Leach, Charles Yonan, Margaret Sheehan, Anne Donnelly, Olga Klepitskaya

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Michael SerbinNeurocrine Biosciences, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6876-7150
Connie MarrasThe Edmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9236-9328
Carol MansfieldRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3144-8938
Colton LeachRTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8744-1903
Charles YonanNeurocrine Biosciences, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6374-327X
Margaret SheehanAshurst, Washington, DC, USA.
Anne DonnellyKellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Olga KlepitskayaNeurocrine Biosciences, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several adjunctive medications are available to reduce OFF time between levodopa/carbidopa (LD/CD) doses for people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Objective: To explore how individuals with PD balance benefits and burdens when considering adjunctive medications. Methods: US adults (30-83 years) with self-reported PD, currently treated with LD/CD, who experienced OFF episodes were recruited through the Fox Insight study to complete a discrete-choice experiment survey. Respondents selected among experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical adjunctive PD treatments that varied in efficacy (additional ON time), potential adverse effects (troublesome dyskinesia, risk of diarrhea, risk of change in bodily fluid color), and dosing frequency or the option "No additional medicine". Data were analyzed with random-parameters logit models. Results: Respondents (N=480) would require ≥60 additional minutes of daily ON time to accept either a 40% risk of change in bodily fluid color or 10 additional minutes with troublesome dyskinesia daily. Respondents would require 40 additional minutes of daily ON time to accept a 10% risk of diarrhea and 22 additional minutes of daily ON time to switch from 1 additional pill each day to 1 pill with each LD/CD dose. On average, respondents preferred adjunctive PD medication over no additional medication. Results predicted that 59.1% of respondents would select a hypothetical treatment profile similar to opicapone, followed by no additional medication (27.5%) and a hypothetical treatment profile similar to entacapone (13.4%). Limitations: The data collected were based on responses to hypothetical choice profiles in the survey questions. The attributes and levels selected for this study were intended to reflect the characteristics of opicapone and entacapone; attributes associated with other adjunctive therapies were not evaluated. Conclusion: Patients with PD expressed interest in adjunctive treatment to increase ON time and would accept reduced ON time to avoid adverse effects.

Indexed as

discrete choiceParkinson’sstated preferences

Identifiers

PMID37724313
PMCPMC10505378

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.