ASN's Mission

To create a world without kidney diseases, the ASN Alliance for Kidney Health elevates care by educating and informing, driving breakthroughs and innovation, and advocating for policies that create transformative changes in kidney medicine throughout the world.

learn more

Contact ASN

1401 H St, NW, Ste 900, Washington, DC 20005

email@asn-online.org

202-640-4660

The Latest on X

Kidney Week

Abstract: FR-PO0420

Describing Patient Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Preferences for New Kidney Replacement Technologies

Session Information

Category: Dialysis

  • 801 Dialysis: Hemodialysis and Frequent Dialysis

Authors

  • Mir, Nabaan Azwad, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, United States
  • Trieu, Desmond, University of California San Francisco Department of Clinical Pharmacy, San Francisco, California, United States
  • Vargas, Ruben, University of California San Francisco Department of Clinical Pharmacy, San Francisco, California, United States
  • Frassetto, Lynda, University of California San Francisco Department of Medicine, San Francisco, California, United States
  • Roy, Shuvo, University of California San Francisco Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, San Francisco, California, United States
  • Wilson, Leslie, University of California San Francisco Department of Clinical Pharmacy, San Francisco, California, United States
Background

Kidney Replacement Therapies (KRT) do not support the prevalence of ESRD or patient preferences for in-home treatments. Artificial kidney devices can potentially solve both. We provide patient risk benefit tradeoffs for new KRTs to support their first in human use.

Methods

We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) using a previously developed conjoint survey to assess heterogeneity of ESRD patients’ preferences for KRTs (Wilson, 2024). The DCE was a random, full profile, balanced-overlap design using Sawtooth for online administration to 498 patients, who chose from fourteen randomly generated choice pairs of risks (infection, death, device failure, surgeries) and benefits (mobility, diet, pill burden, follow-up, fatigue) of KRTs. We stratified by demographics, education, income, insurance, treatment modality and length. Analysis was mixed-effects regression with attributes as interaction terms, latent class analysis, and simultaneous maximal accessible risk thresholds (SMART).

Results

Race, age, gender groups did not differ significantly in preferences for most risks/benefits of KRT. Mobility remained top priority across demographic groups (femaleβ=1.58, maleβ=1.77; youngβ=1.74, olderβ=1.55). Females significantly more strongly preferred avoiding frequent surgery (β=0.53, p=0.003) and device rejection (β=-0.17, p=0.02). Younger patients significantly preferred avoiding all fatigue (β=0.25 & β=0.26, p=0.02). Moderate income groups had significantly stronger preference for gaining mobility than low income groups (β=0.59, p=0.02), and also had stronger preferences for avoiding all fatigue levels (β=0.36 & 0.55, p=0.008 & 0.0002) and highest mortality risk (β=-0.50, p=0.05), than low income groups. Group2 of latent class analysis showed much stronger preferences for gaining highest mobility (β=3.7vsβ=0.48) and other KRT benefits (avoiding fatigue: β=1.09vsβ=0.68), and similar preferences for avoiding their risks than Group1. SMART analysis shows effects of trading simultaneous risks for gains in each benefit.

Conclusion

Strongest patient preferences were for improving mobility. Patients were willing to make risk-benefit tradeoffs needed for KRT acceptance. The CKD patients with strongest preferences for making the risk/benefit trade-offs for use of KRTs could be early adopters for their first in human approval.

Funding

  • Other NIH Support

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)