To assess patient preferences for benefits and risks in hemophilia A treatment.Methods: A systematic literature search and pretest interviews were conducted to determine the most patient-relevant endpoints in terms of effects, risks, and administration of hemophilia A treatments. A Best-Worst Scaling (BWS; Case 3 or multiprofile case) approach was applied in a structured questionnaire. Patients were surveyed by interviewers in a computer-assisted personal interview. Treatments in the choice scenarios comprised bleeding frequency per year, application type, risk of thromboembolic event risk, and inhibitor development. Each respondent answered 13 choice tasks, including 1 dominant task, comparing 3 treatment profiles. Data were analyzed using a mixed logit model (random-parameters logit).Results: Data from 57 patients were used. The attributes "bleeding frequency per year" and "inhibitor development" had the greatest impact on respondents' choice decisions. Patients disliked being at risk of inhibitor development more than being at risk of thromboembolic events. The type of application, whether intravenous or subcutaneous, was of less importance for patients. There was a significant preference variation for all attributes.Conclusions: Patients value low frequency of bleeding per year and low risk of development of inhibitors the most. An increase of risk and frequency would significantly decrease the impact on choice decisions. The type of application does not seem to influence the choice decision very much compared with the other attributes. Regarding preference heterogeneity, further analysis is needed to identify subgroups among patients and their characteristics. This may help to adapt individually patienttailored treatment alternatives for hemophilia A patients.

Objective To examine subgroup-specific treatment preferences and characteristics of patients with hemophilia A. Methods Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) Case 3 (four attributes: application type; bleeding frequencies/year; inhibitor development risk; thromboembolic events of hemophilia A treatment risk) conducted via online survey. Respondents chose the best and the worst option of three treatment alternatives. Data were analyzed via latent class model (LCM), allowing capture of heterogeneity in the sample. Respondents were grouped into a predefined number of classes with distinct preferences. Results The final dataset contained 57 respondents. LCM analysis segmented the sample into two classes with heterogeneous preferences. Preferences within each were homogeneous. For class 1, the most decisive factor was bleeding frequency/year. Respondents seemed to focus mainly on this in their choice decisions. With some distance, inhibitor development was the second most important. The remaining attributes were of far less importance for respondents in this class. Respondents in class 2 based their choice decisions primarily on inhibitor development, also followed, by some distance, the second most important attribute bleeding frequency/year. There was statistical significance (P < 0.05) between the number of annual bleedings and the probability of class membership. Conclusions The LCM analysis addresses heterogeneity in respondents’ choice decisions, which helps to tailor treatment alternatives to individual needs. Study results support clinical and allocative decision-making and improve the quality of interpretation of clinical data.