@article{cf797debb76f4fc3bdebbf1fc29026af,
title = "Patient preferences for stratified medicine in psoriasis: a discrete choice experiment",
abstract = "Background: New technologies have enabled the potential for stratified medicine in psoriasis. It is important to understand patients{\textquoteright} preferences to enable the informed introduction of stratified medicine, which is likely to involve a number of individual tests that could be collated into a prescribing algorithm for biological drug selection to be used in clinical practice. Objectives: To quantify patient preferences for an algorithm-based approach to prescribing biologics ({\textquoteleft}biologic calculator{\textquoteright}) in psoriasis. Methods: An online survey comprising a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit the preferences of two purposive samples of adults living with psoriasis in the UK, identified from a psoriasis patient organization (Psoriasis Association) and an online panel provider (Dynata). Respondents chose between two biologic calculators and conventional prescribing described using five attributes: treatment delay; positive predictive value; negative predictive value; risk of infection; and cost saving to the National Health Service. Each participant selected their preferred alternative from six hypothetical choice sets. Additional data, including sociodemographic characteristics, were collected. Choice data were analysed using conditional logit and fully correlated random parameters logit models. Results: Data from 212 respondents (67 from the Psoriasis Association and 145 from Dynata) were analysed. The signs of all estimated coefficients were consistent with a priori expectations. Respondents had a strong preference for a high predictive accuracy and avoiding serious infection, but there was evidence of systematic differences in preferences between the samples. Conclusions: This study indicates that individuals with psoriasis would value a biologic calculator and suggested that such a biologic calculator should have sufficient accuracy to predict future response and risk of serious infection from the biologic.",
author = "Garima Dalal and Stuart Wright and Caroline Vass and Niall Davison and {Vander Stichele}, Geert and Smith, {Catherine H} and Griffiths, {C. E. M.} and Katherine Payne",
note = "Funding Information: The authors would like to thank the respondents for completing the survey and providing feedback. The authors would also like to thank the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Riksbanken Jubileumsfond for funding this research. C.E.M.G. is a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Emeritus Senior Investigator. C.H.S. acknowledges support from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King{\textquoteright}s College London/Guy{\textquoteright}s and St Thomas{\textquoteright} NHS Foundation Trust. This study was supported by the PSORT Consortium, which is, in turn, funded by a MRC Stratified Medicine award (MR/L011808/1). Partners of the PSORT consortium are AbbVie, the British Association of Dermatologists, Becton Dickinson and Company, Celgene Limited, GlaxoSmithKline, Guy{\textquoteright}s and St Thomas{\textquoteright} NHS Foundation Trust, Eli Lilly, Janssen Research & Development, King{\textquoteright}s College London, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK, Pfizer Italy, the Psoriasis Association, Qiagen Manchester, Queen Mary University of London, the Royal College of Physicians, Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation, the University of Liverpool, the University of Manchester and Newcastle University. All decisions concerning analysis, interpretation and publication are made independently of any industrial contribution. Funding Information: sources G.D., N.J.D., C.H.S., C.E.M.G. and K.P. received financial support for the conduct of this study from PSORT, a project funded by Medical Research Council (grant reference MR/L011808/1). C.M.V. and K.P. received financial support for the conduct of this study from ?Mind the Risk?, a project funded by Riksbanken Jubileumsfond. MindBytes (Ghent, Belgium) was paid a fee to animate a predefined storyline for the training materials. C.E.M.G. is funded, in part, by the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All decisions concerning analysis, interpretation and publication were made independently of the funding bodies.The authors would like to thank the respondents for completing the survey and providing feedback. The authors would also like to thank the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Riksbanken Jubileumsfond for funding this research. C.E.M.G. is a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Emeritus Senior Investigator. C.H.S. acknowledges support from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King?s College London/Guy?s and St Thomas? NHS Foundation Trust. This study was supported by the PSORT Consortium, which is, in turn, funded by a MRC Stratified Medicine award (MR/L011808/1). Partners of the PSORT consortium are AbbVie, the British Association of Dermatologists, Becton Dickinson and Company, Celgene Limited, GlaxoSmithKline, Guy?s and St Thomas? NHS Foundation Trust, Eli Lilly, Janssen Research & Development, King?s College London, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK, Pfizer Italy, the Psoriasis Association, Qiagen Manchester, Queen Mary University of London, the Royal College of Physicians, Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation, the University of Liverpool, the University of Manchester and Newcastle University. All decisions concerning analysis, interpretation and publication are made independently of any industrial contribution. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists",
year = "2021",
month = may,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1111/bjd.20482",
language = "English",
volume = "185",
pages = "978--987",
journal = "British Journal of Dermatology",
issn = "0007-0963",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd",
number = "5",
}