Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt

Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: impact of treatment experience.

Background  Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments can impact treatment satisfaction and adherence and may therefore influence clinical outcome.

Matching physicians' treatment recommendations to patients' treatment preferences is associated with improvement in treatment satisfaction.

Background  Dissatisfaction with treatment is common among those with psoriasis. While incorporating patients’ preferences into the process of treatment decision‐making may improve satisfaction, this relationship has not been clearly established.

Treatment Satisfaction of Patients with Psoriasis

Treatment satisfaction of patients with psoriasis largely depends on the treatment modality, but evidence on preferences for specific medications is scarce. Here we assessed treatment satisfaction of 200 participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis from a German University hospital with a 5-point scale and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) and determined sociodemographic and disease-related influence factors. Participants obtaining biologicals and traditional systemic medications were significantly more satisfied than those receiving phototherapy or topical agents (TSQM = 323.3, 288.0, 260.6 or 266.8; p < 0.001). The highest TSQM score was calculated for ustekinumab (350.1), followed by acitretin (338.1), adalimumab (323.0), fumaric acid esters (304.7), infliximab (300.2), etanercept (298.8), and methotrexate (272.3; p < 0.001). High disease-related quality of life impairment (β = -0.437, p < 0.001) and psoriatic arthritis (β = -0.185, p = 0.005) were associated with decreased satisfaction. Optimising satisfaction is essential to improve adherence and outcome. We show high preferences for biologicals, particularly ustekinumab, but also good satisfaction with certain traditional medications.

Patient Preferences for Treatment of Psoriasis with Biologicals: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Treatment dissatisfaction and non-adherence are common among patients with psoriasis, partly due to discordance between individual preferences and recommended treatments. However, patients are more satisfied with biologicals than with other treatments. The aim of our study was to assess patient preferences for treatment of psoriasis with biologicals by using computer-based conjoint analysis. Biologicals approved for psoriasis in Germany were decomposed into outcome (probability of 50% and 90% improvement, time until response, sustainability of success, probability of mild and severe adverse events (AE), probability of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response) and process attributes (treatment location, frequency, duration and delivery method). Impact of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics and disease severity on Relative Importance Scores (RIS) of each attribute was assessed with analyses of variance, post hoc tests, and multivariate regression. Averaged across the cohort of 200 participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, preferences were highest for avoiding severe AE (RIS = 17.3), followed by 90% improvement (RIS = 14.0) and avoiding mild AE (RIS = 10.5). Process attributes reached intermediate RIS (8.2–8.8). Men were more concerned about efficacy than women (50% improvement: RIS = 6.9 vs. 9.5, p = 0.008; β = -0.191, p = 0.011 in multivariate models; 90% improvement: RIS = 12.1 vs. 15.4, p = 0.002; β = -0.197, p = 0.009). Older participants judged the probability of 50% and 90% improvement less relevant than younger ones (50% improvement: Pearson’s Correlation (PC) = -0.161, p = 0.022; β = -0.219, p = 0.017; 90% improvement: PC = -0.155, p = 0.028; β = -0.264, p = 0.004) but worried more about severe AE (PC = 0.175, p = 0.013; β = 0.166, p = 0.082). In summary, participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were most interested in safety of biologicals, followed by efficacy, but preferences varied with sociodemographic characteristics and working status. Based on this knowledge, physicians should identify preferences of each individual patient during shared decision-making in order to optimize treatment satisfaction, adherence and outcome.

Patient Preferences for Treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma: Importance of Cure and Cosmetic Outcome

Treatment options for localized resectable basal cell carcinoma (BCC) include micrographically controlled surgery, simple excision, curettage, laser ablation, cryosurgery, imiquimod, 5-fluorouracil, photodynamic therapy and radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of patients with BCC for outcome (cure and recurrence rate, cosmetic outcome, risk of temporary and permanent complications) and process attributes (type of therapy, treatment location, anaesthesia, method of wound closure, duration of wound healing, out-of-pocket costs) of these treatments with conjoint analysis. Participants (n = 124) attached greatest importance to recurrence rate (relative importance score (RIS) = 17.28), followed by cosmetic outcome (RIS = 16.90) and cure rate (RIS = 15.02). Participants with BCC on the head or neck were particularly interested in cosmetic outcome. Those with a recurrence were willing to trade risk of recurrence, treatment location and duration of wound healing for a better cosmetic result. In summary, participants particularly valued cure and cosmetic outcome, although preferences varied with individual and tumour-associated characteristics.

Drug survival rates and reasons for drug discontinuation in psoriasis

Moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis frequently requires long‐term systemic therapy. Reflecting efficacy, safety, and treatment satisfaction, drug survival is an indicator of therapeutic success. The objective of the present study was to assess drug survival rates and reasons for discontinuation of fumaric acid esters (FAE), methotrexate (MTX), acitretin (ACI), cyclosporine A (CyA), adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA), infliximab (INF), and ustekinumab (UST) in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Patient Preferences for Biologicals in Psoriasis: Top Priority of Safety for Cardiovascular Patients

Patients with psoriasis are often affected by comorbidities, which largely influence treatment decisions. Here we performed conjoint analysis to assess the impact of comorbidities on preferences of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis for outcome (probability of 50% and 90% improvement, time until response, sustainability of success, probability of mild and severe adverse events (AE), probability of ACR 20 response) and process attributes (treatment location, frequency, duration and delivery method) of biologicals. The influence of comorbidities on Relative Importance Scores (RIS) was determined with analysis of variance and multivariate regression. Among the 200 participants completing the study, 22.5% suffered from psoriatic arthritis, 31.5% from arterial hypertension, 15% from cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, and/or arterial occlusive disease), 14.5% from diabetes, 11% from hyperlipidemia, 26% from chronic bronchitis or asthma and 12.5% from depression. Participants with psoriatic arthritis attached greater importance to ACR 20 response (RIS = 10.3 vs. 5.0, p<0.001; β = 0.278, p<0.001) and sustainability (RIS = 5.8 vs. 5.0, p = 0.032) but less value to time until response (RIS = 3.4 vs. 4.8, p = 0.045) than those without arthritis. Participants with arterial hypertension were particularly interested in a low risk of mild AE (RIS 9.7 vs. 12.1; p = 0.033) and a short treatment duration (RIS = 8.0 vs. 9.6, p = 0.002). Those with cardiovascular disease worried more about mild AE (RIS = 12.8 vs. 10, p = 0.027; β = 0.170, p = 0.027) and severe AE (RIS = 23.2 vs. 16.2, p = 0.001; β = 0.203, p = 0.007) but cared less about time until response (β = -0.189, p = 0.013), treatment location (β = -0.153, p = 0.049), frequency (β = -0.20, p = 0.008) and delivery method (β = -0.175, p = 0.023) than others. Patients’ concerns should be addressed in-depth when prescribing biologicals to comorbid patients, keeping in mind that TNF antagonists may favourably influence cardiovascular risk.

Behandlungspräferenzen für Biologika bei Psoriasis: erfahrene Patienten legen Wert auf Nachhaltigkeit: GNYL bei labialen Lentigines bei PJS

Die Therapiezufriedenheit kann durch die Berücksichtigung von Patientenpräferenzen in der gemeinsamen Entscheidungsfindung verbessert werden. Kürzlich untersuchten wir Patientenpräferenzen für Eigenschaften von Biologika und fanden starke Präferenzen für Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit. Die vorliegende Studie hatte das Ziel, Auswirkungen von Therapieerfahrung auf diese Präferenzen zu erheben.

Assessing the Importance of Treatment Goals in Patients with Psoriasis: Analytic Hierarchy Process vs. Likert Scales

BackgroundTo define treatment benefit, the Patient Benefit Index contains a weighting of patient-relevant treatment goals using the Patient Needs Questionnaire, which includes a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“not important at all”) to 4 (“very important”). These treatment goals have been assigned to five health dimensions. The importance of each dimension can be derived by averaging the importance ratings on the Likert scales of associated treatment goals.ObjectiveAs the use of a Likert scale does not allow for a relative assessment of importance, the objective of this study was to estimate relative importance weights for health dimensions and associated treatment goals in patients with psoriasis by using the analytic hierarchy process and to compare these weights with the weights resulting from the Patient Needs Questionnaire. Furthermore, patients’ judgments on the difficulty of the methods were investigated.MethodsDimensions of the Patient Benefit Index and their treatment goals were mapped into a hierarchy of criteria and sub-criteria to develop the analytic hierarchy process questionnaire. Adult patients with psoriasis starting a new anti-psoriatic therapy in the outpatient clinic of the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing at the University Medical Center Hamburg (Germany) were recruited and completed both methods (analytic hierarchy process, Patient Needs Questionnaire). Ratings of treatment goals on the Likert scales (Patient Needs Questionnaire) were summarized within each dimension to assess the importance of the respective health dimension/criterion. Following the analytic hierarchy process approach, consistency in judgments was assessed using a standardized measurement (consistency ratio).ResultsAt the analytic hierarchy process level of criteria, 78 of 140 patients achieved the accepted consistency. Using the analytic hierarchy process, the dimension “improvement of physical functioning” was most important, followed by “improvement of social functioning”. Concerning the Patient Needs Questionnaire results, these dimensions were ranked in second and fifth position, whereas “strengthening of confidence in the therapy and in a possible healing” was ranked most important, which was least important in the analytic hierarchy process ranking. In both methods, “improvement of psychological well-being” and “reduction of impairments due to therapy” were equally ranked in positions three and four. In contrast to this, on the level of sub-criteria, predominantly a similar ranking of treatment goals could be observed between the analytic hierarchy process and the Patient Needs Questionnaire. From the patients’ point of view, the Likert scales (Patient Needs Questionnaire) were easier to complete than the analytic hierarchy process pairwise comparisons.ConclusionsPatients with psoriasis assign different importance to health dimensions and associated treatment goals. In choosing a method to assess the importance of health dimensions and/or treatment goals, it needs to be considered that resulting importance weights may differ in dependence on the used method. However, in this study, observed discrepancies in importance weights of the health dimensions were most likely caused by the different methodological approaches focusing on treatment goals to assess the importance of health dimensions on the one hand (Patient Needs Questionnaire) or directly assessing health dimensions on the other hand (analytic hierarchy process).

Measuring the importance of health domains in psoriasis – discrete choice experiment versus rating scales

Background Psoriasis affects different aspects of health-related quality of life (eg, physical, psychological, and social impairments); these health domains can be of different importance for patients. The importance of domains can be measured with the Patient Benefit Index (PBI). This questionnaire weights the achievement of treatment goals by Likert scales (0, “not important at all” to 4, “very important”) using the Patient Needs Questionnaire (PNQ). Treatment goals assessed with the PBI have been assigned to five health domains; the importance of each domain can be calculated as the average importance of the respective treatment goals. In this study, the PBI approach of deriving importance weights is contrasted to a discrete choice experiment (DCE), in order to determine the importance of health domains in psoriasis, and to find if the resulting weights will differ when derived from these two methods. Methods Adult patients with psoriasis completed both questionnaires (PNQ, DCE). The PBI domains were used as attributes in the DCE with the levels “did not help at all”, “helped moderately”, and “helped a lot”. Results Using DCE, “improving physical functioning” was the most important health domain, followed by “improving psychological well-being”. Using PNQ, these domains were ranked in position two and three following “strengthening confidence in the therapy and in a possible healing”. The latter was least important using DCE. The only agreement of ranking was shown in “reducing impairments due to therapy” (position four). “Improving social functioning” was ranked in position three (DCE) and five (PNQ). Conclusion Health domains have different importance to patients with psoriasis. Using PNQ or DCE to determine the importance of domains results in markedly different rankings; both approaches can thus not be considered equivalent. However, in this study, importance was assessed at the domain level in DCE and at the single item level in PNQ, which may have added to the differences.