Value of Innovative Multiple Myeloma Treatments from Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Sakil Syeed, Chia Jie Tan, Amandeep Godara, Kyna Gooden, Derek Tang, Samantha Slaff, Yu-Hsuan Shih, Surachat Ngorsuraches and Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk ()
Additional contact information
Sakil Syeed: The University of Utah College of Pharmacy
Chia Jie Tan: The University of Utah College of Pharmacy
Amandeep Godara: University of Utah
Kyna Gooden: Bristol Myers Squibb
Derek Tang: Bristol Myers Squibb
Samantha Slaff: Bristol Myers Squibb
Yu-Hsuan Shih: Bristol Myers Squibb
Surachat Ngorsuraches: Auburn University Harrison College of Pharmacy
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk: The University of Utah College of Pharmacy

PharmacoEconomics, 2025, vol. 43, issue 4, No 4, 403-414

Abstract: Abstract Background Although innovation generally provides measurable improvements in disease characteristics and patient survival, some benefits can remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate patient and healthcare provider (HCP) preferences for the innovative attributes of multiple myeloma (MM) treatments. Methods A cross-sectional, web-based, discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was conducted among 200 patients with MM and 30 HCPs of patients with MM in the USA. A literature review, followed by interviews with patients with MM and HCPs, was undertaken to select five attributes (progression-free survival [PFS], chance of severe side effects, how patients live with MM treatments, scientific innovation, and monthly out-of-pocket [OOP] cost) and their levels. A Bayesian efficient design was used to generate DCE choice sets. Each choice set comprised two hypothetical MM treatment alternatives described by the selected attributes and their levels. Each patient and HCP was asked to choose a preferred alternative from each of the 11 choice sets. Mixed logit and latent class models were developed to estimate patient and HCP preferences for the treatment attributes. Results Overall, patients and HCPs preferred increased PFS, less chance of severe side effects, a treatment that offered life without treatment, scientific innovation, and lower OOP cost. From patients’ perspectives, PFS had the highest conditional relative importance (44.7%), followed by how patients live with MM treatments (21.6%) and scientific innovation (16.0%). Conclusions In addition to PFS, patients and HCPs also valued innovative MM treatments that allowed them to live without treatments and/or offered scientific innovation. These attributes should be considered when evaluating MM treatments.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01459-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01459-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01459-8

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().