Therapeutic preference for Alzheimer’s disease treatments: a discrete choice experiment with caregivers and neurologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major global health crisis in need of more effective therapies. However, difficult choices to optimize value-based care will need to be made. While identifying preferred therapeutic attributes of new AD therapies is necessary, few studies have explored how preferences may vary between the stakeholders. In this study, the trade-offs among key attributes of amyloid plaque-lowering therapies for AD were assessed using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and compared between caregivers and neurologists. METHODS: An initial pilot study was conducted to identify the potentially relevant features of a new therapy. The DCE evaluated seven drug attributes: clinical effects in terms of delay in AD progression over the standard of care (SOC), variation in clinical effects, biomarker response (achieving amyloid plaque clearance on PET scan), amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema (ARIA-E), duration of therapy, need for treatment titration as well as route, and frequency of drug administration. Respondents were then randomly presented with 12 choice sets of treatment options and asked to select their preferred option in each choice set. Hierarchical Bayesian regression modeling was used to estimate weighted preference attributes, which were presented as mean partial utility scores (pUS), with higher scores suggesting an increased preference. RESULTS: Both caregivers (n = 137) and neurologists (n = 161) considered clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.47 and 0.82) and a 5% incremental in ARIA-E (mean pUS = - 0.26 and - 0.52) to be highly impactful determinants of therapeutic choice. In contrast, variation in clinical effects (mean pUS = 0.12 and 0.14) and treatment duration (mean pUS = - 0.02 and - 0.13) were the least important characteristics of any new treatment. Neurologists' also indicated that subcutaneous drug delivery (mean pUS = 0.42 vs. 0.07) and administration every 4 weeks (mean pUS = 1.0 vs. 0.20) are highly desirable therapeutic features. Respondents were willing to accept up to a 9% increment in ARIA-E for one additional year of delayed progression. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers and neurologists considered incremental clinical benefit over SOC and safety to be highly desirable qualities for a new drug that could clear amyloid plaques and delay clinical progression and indicated a willingness to accept incremental ARIA-E to achieve additional clinical benefits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".