Patient and physician preferences for atopic dermatitis injection treatments in Japan
Background: Recently, biologic agents administered as a subcutaneous injection have been introduced as treatment options for atopic dermatitis (AD). Biologic treatments differ considerably from traditional topical and systemic anti-inflammatory treatments, and it is unclear how this may impact patie...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2020-11-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Dermatological Treatment |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2019.1623860 |
| Summary: | Background: Recently, biologic agents administered as a subcutaneous injection have been introduced as treatment options for atopic dermatitis (AD). Biologic treatments differ considerably from traditional topical and systemic anti-inflammatory treatments, and it is unclear how this may impact patient and physician preferences for treatments. Objective: To examine the treatment preferences for new injection treatments of patients and physicians. Methods: Discrete choice experiment methodology was used to quantify preferences for treatments via an online survey. Participants were presented with a series of choice scenarios; treatment options were described using the following attributes: add-on or replacement treatment, efficacy of improving rashes and itching, time until response, place of administration, injection site reaction, risk of mild-to-moderate and severe side effects, frequency of administration and cost. Results: 76.67% of physicians and 46.24% of patients opted-in to the new treatment in the scenarios presented. Of those who opted-in to treatment, physicians were more likely to value the efficacy of treating rashes and were more concerned about cost than patients. Patients preferred add-on treatments and were against self-administering the treatment at home. Conclusion: Overall patients and physicians differ in their preferences for AD treatments. These findings have implications for shared decision making and clinical practice. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0954-6634 1471-1753 |