| Title: |
Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment |
| Authors: |
Bougie, Joanna K.; Krupsky, Kathryn; Beusterien, Kathleen; Ladouceur, Marie‐Pier; Mulvihill, Emily |
| Contributors: |
Lundbeck Canada |
| Source: |
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain ; volume 65, issue 1, page 113-123 ; ISSN 0017-8748 1526-4610 |
| Publisher Information: |
Wiley |
| Publication Year: |
2024 |
| Collection: |
Wiley Online Library (Open Access Articles via Crossref) |
| Description: |
Objective To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine. Background Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary. Methods Canadian adults self‐reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross‐sectional, internet‐based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences. Results In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants’ treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from “wears off 2 weeks before next dose” to “does not wear off before the next dose” (absolute difference in weights = |−0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from “cranial injections” to “intravenous infusions” (|−1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self‐injection and intravenous infusion from a health‐care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = −1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one ( n = 103) prioritized fast‐acting and durable therapies, group two ( n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three ( n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health‐care provider setting. Conclusions In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of ... |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
English |
| DOI: |
10.1111/head.14781 |
| Availability: |
https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14781; https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/head.14781 |
| Rights: |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.7603A862 |
| Database: |
BASE |