Home › Research › Treatments
Therapeutic preference for Alzheimer's disease treatments: a discrete choice experiment with caregivers and neurologists
Dranitsaris G, Zhang Q, Mu L, Weyrer C, Drysdale E, Neumann P, Atri A, Monfared AAT.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2023-03-24
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Plain-language summary
Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major global health crisis in need of more effective therapies. However, difficult choices to optimize value-based care will need to be made. While identifying preferred therapeutic attributes of new AD therapies is necessary, few studies have explored how preferences may vary between the stakeholders. In this study, the trade-offs among key attributes of amyloid plaque-lowering therapies for AD were assessed using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and compared between caregivers and neurologists. Methods An initial pilot study was conducted to identify the potentially relevant features of a new therapy. The DCE evaluated seven drug attributes: clinical effects in terms of delay in AD progression over the standard of care (SOC), variation in clinical effects, biomarker response (achieving amyloid plaque clearance on PET scan), amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema (ARIA-E), duration of therapy, need for treatment titration as well as route, and frequency of drug administration. Respondents were then randomly presented with 12 choice sets of treatment options and asked to select their preferred option in each choice set. Hierarchical Bayesian regression modeling was used to estimate weighted preference attributes, which were presented as mean partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference. Results Both caregivers (n = 137) and neurologists (n = 161) considered clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.47 and 0.82) and a 5% incremental in ARIA-E (mean pUS = - 0.26 and - 0.52) to be highly impactful determinants of therapeutic choice. In contrast, variation in clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.12 and 0.14) and treatment duration (mean pUS = - 0.02 and - 0.13) were the least important characteristics of any new treatment. Neurologists' also indicated that subcutaneous drug delivery (mean pUS = 0.42 vs. 0.07) and administration every 4 weeks (mean pUS = 1.0 vs. 0.20) are highly desirable therapeutic features. Respondents were willing to accept up to a 9% increment in ARIA-E for one additional year of delayed progression. Conclusions Caregivers and neurologists considered incremental clinical benefit over SOC and safety to be highly desirable qualities for a new drug that could clear amyloid plaques and delay clinical progression and indicated a willingness to accept incremental ARIA-E to achieve additional clinical benefits.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dranitsaris, G., Zhang, Q., Mu, L., Weyrer, C., Drysdale, E., Neumann, P., et al. (2023). Therapeutic preference for Alzheimer's disease treatments: a discrete choice experiment with caregivers and neurologists. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-023-01207-8
Vancouver
Dranitsaris G, Zhang Q, Mu L, Weyrer C, Drysdale E, Neumann P, et al. Therapeutic preference for Alzheimer's disease treatments: a discrete choice experiment with caregivers and neurologists. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2023. doi:10.1186/s13195-023-01207-8. PMID: 36964606.
BibTeX
@article{dranitsaris2023-36964606,
author = {Dranitsaris, G. and Zhang, Q. and Mu, L. and Weyrer, C. and Drysdale, E. and Neumann, P. and Atri, A. and Monfared, A. A. T.},
title = {{Therapeutic preference for Alzheimer's disease treatments: a discrete choice experiment with caregivers and neurologists}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-023-01207-8},
pmid = {36964606},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-023-01207-8}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Both caregivers (n = 137) and neurologists (n = 161) considered clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.47 and 0.82) and a 5% incremental in ARIA-E (mean pUS = - 0.26 and - 0.52) to be highly impactful determinants of therapeutic choice.
- Neurologists' also indicated that subcutaneous drug delivery (mean pUS = 0.42 vs. 0.07) and administration every 4 weeks (mean pUS = 1.0 vs. 0.20) are highly desirable therapeutic features.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants137
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 137 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36964606) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “monoclonal”
332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monoclonal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.