Treatment preference among patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA): a discrete choice experiment

To examine patient/caregiver preference for key attributes of treatments for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

In the rapidly evolving SMA treatment landscape, it is critically important to understand how attributes of potential treatments may impact patient/caregiver choices.

A discrete choice experiment survey was developed based on qualitative interviews. Patients with SMA (≥ 18 years) and caregivers of patients were recruited through a U.S. patient organization. Respondents made choices in each of 12 sets of hypothetical treatments. The relative importance of five treatment characteristics was compared (measured by regression coefficients [RC] of conditional logit models): (1) improvement or stabilization of motor function, (2) improvement or stabilization of breathing function, (3) indication for all ages or pediatric patients only, (4) route of administration [repeated intrathecal (IT) injections, one-time intravenous (IV) infusion, daily oral delivery] and (5) potential harm (mild, moderate, serious/life threatening).

Patient ages ranged from less than 1 to 67 years (n = 101, 65 self-reported and 36 caregiver-reported) and 64 were female. Total SMA subtypes included: type 1 (n = 21), type 2 (n = 48), type 3 (n = 29), other (n = 3). Prior spinal surgery was reported in 47 patients. Nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi use were reported in 59 and 10 patients, respectively. Improvement in motor and breathing function was highly valued [RC: 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.83 and RC: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98, respectively]. Oral medication and one-time infusion were strongly preferred over repeated IT injections (RC: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98 and RC: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30-0.73, respectively). Patients least preferred an age-restricted label/approved use (≤ 2 years of age) (RC: - 1.28, 95% CI: - 1.47 to - 1.09). Cross-attributes trade-off decision suggested a lower willingness for a high-risk therapy despite additional efficacy gain. For some patients, there may be willingness to trade off additional gains in efficacy for a change in route of administration from repeated intrathecal administration to oral medication.

Improvements in motor/breathing function, broad indication, oral or one-time infusion, and minimal risk were preferred treatment attributes. Treatment decisions should be made in clinical context and be tailored to patient needs.