ArticleThe patient2025
Assessing Preferences of Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria for Injectable Treatment Profiles.
Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the context of injectable biologic products approved or in development for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), it is important to capture which treatment attributes matter most to patient and what trade-offs patients are willing to make.
objectivesThe CHOICE-CSU study aimed to quantify patient preferences toward injectable treatment attributes among patients with CSU, inadequately controlled by H1-antihistamines.
methodsThis was a two-phase cross-sectional patient preference study in adult patients with a diagnosis of CSU, inadequately controlled by H1-antihistamines. A qualitative phase collected patients' insights and relevant treatment attributes that mattered to them, and the outputs were used for the quantitative phase to create the actual injectable treatment profiles with attributes and levels such as: efficacy, safety, and mode of administration. The quantitative phase used discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology. Eligible patients were asked to make hypothetical choices between 12 treatment profile pairs, created by Sawtooth Software
resultsA total of 450 respondents participated in the DCE. The key attributes driving respondent preference amongst injectable treatment options were type of administration device (relative importance 18.5%), complete control of urticaria (relative importance 17.4%), and resolution of angioedema (relative importance 16.4%). Keeping all other attributes and levels equal, the predicted choice share was higher for a profile with an auto-injector versus one with a pre-filled syringe (72.9% versus 27.1%).
conclusionsThe CHOICE-CSU study is the first study to provide a quantitative assessment of preferences that patients with CSU, inadequately controlled by H1-antihistamines, have for injectable treatment attributes. Symptom-free periods are the most important overriding therapy goal for patients, and patients will accept some inconveniences, such as administration mode, to achieve this. Additionally, when efficacy is equivalent, administration ease of injectable therapies is valued by patients. As new CSU oral treatment options emerge, additional testing of patient preference toward oral treatments will be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.