1
|
DiSantostefano RL, Smith IP, Falahee M, Jiménez-Moreno AC, Oliveri S, Veldwijk J, de Wit GA, Janssen EM, Berlin C, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now? THE PATIENT 2024; 17:179-190. [PMID: 38103109 PMCID: PMC10894084 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/01/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. METHODS Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. RESULTS One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. CONCLUSIONS As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ian P Smith
- Janssen Research & Development LLC, 1125 Trenton Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marie Falahee
- Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Serena Oliveri
- Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IEO IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Ardine de Wit
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen M Janssen
- Janssen Research & Development LLC, 1125 Trenton Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Whichello C, Smith I, Veldwijk J, de Wit GA, Rutten-van Molken MPMH, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0283926. [PMID: 37506078 PMCID: PMC10381030 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2021] [Accepted: 03/21/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Limited evidence exists for how patient preference elicitation methods compare directly. This study compares a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing-weighting (SW) by eliciting preferences for glucose-monitoring devices in a population of diabetes patients. METHODS A sample of Dutch adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes (n = 459) completed an online survey assessing their preferences for glucose-monitoring devices, consisting of both a DCE and a SW exercise. Half the sample completed the DCE first; the other half completed the SW first. For the DCE, the relative importance of the attributes of the devices was determined using a mixed-logit model. For the SW, the relative importance of the attributes was based on ranks and points allocated to the 'swing' from the worst to the best level of the attribute. The preference outcomes and self-reported response burden were directly compared between the two methods. RESULTS Participants reported they perceived the DCE to be easier to understand and answer compared to the SW. Both methods revealed that cost and precision of the device were the most important attributes. However, the DCE had a 14.9-fold difference between the most and least important attribute, while the SW had a 1.4-fold difference. The weights derived from the SW were almost evenly distributed between all attributes. CONCLUSIONS The DCE was better received by participants, and generated larger weight differences between each attribute level, making it the more informative method in our case study. This method comparison provides further evidence of the degree of method suitability and trustworthiness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chiara Whichello
- Evidera, London, United Kingdom
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ian Smith
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Ardine de Wit
- Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maureen P M H Rutten-van Molken
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther W de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mott DJ, Ternent L, Vale L. Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2023; 24:413-423. [PMID: 35716317 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01482-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Preference information is increasingly being elicited to support decision-making. Although discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used, little is known about how respondents' relative experience of a health issue, and its treatment, might impact the results of preference studies. The aim of this study was to explore how preferences differ between groups of individuals with varying levels of experience of a health issue and its treatment, using a weight loss maintenance (WLM) programme as a case study. METHODS An online DCE survey was provided to four groups, each differing in their level of experience with weight loss and WLM programmes. One group was recruited from a randomised controlled trial of a WLM programme (ISRCTN14657176) and the other three from an online panel. Choice data were analysed using mixed logit models. Relative attribute importance scores and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were estimated to enable comparisons between groups. RESULTS Preferences differed between the groups across different attributes. The largest differences related to the outcome (weight re-gain) and cost attributes, resulting in WTP estimates that were statistically significantly different. The most experienced group was willing to pay £0.35 (95% CI: £0.28, £0.42) to avoid a percentage point increase in weight re-gain, compared with £0.12 (95% CI: £0.08, £0.16) for the least experienced group. CONCLUSION This study provides evidence in a public health setting to suggest that preferences differ based on respondent experience of the health issue and its treatment. Health preference researchers should therefore carefully consider the appropriate composition of their study samples.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David J Mott
- Office of Health Economics, Southside 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, UK.
- Health Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
| | - Laura Ternent
- Health Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Luke Vale
- Health Economics Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rincon-Gonzalez L, Selig WKD, Hauber B, Reed SD, Tarver ME, Chaudhuri SE, Lo AW, Bruhn-Ding D, Liden B. Leveraging Patient Preference Information in Medical Device Clinical Trial Design. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2023; 57:152-159. [PMID: 36030334 PMCID: PMC9755102 DOI: 10.1007/s43441-022-00450-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2022] [Accepted: 08/12/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
Use of robust, quantitative tools to measure patient perspectives within product development and regulatory review processes offers the opportunity for medical device researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders to evaluate what matters most to patients and support the development of products that can best meet patient needs. The medical device innovation consortium (MDIC) undertook a series of projects, including multiple case studies and expert consultations, to identify approaches for utilizing patient preference information (PPI) to inform clinical trial design in the US regulatory context. Based on these activities, this paper offers a cogent review of considerations and opportunities for researchers seeking to leverage PPI within their clinical trial development programs and highlights future directions to enhance this field. This paper also discusses various approaches for maximizing stakeholder engagement in the process of incorporating PPI into the study design, including identifying novel endpoints and statistical considerations, crosswalking between attributes and endpoints, and applying findings to the population under study. These strategies can help researchers ensure that clinical trials are designed to generate evidence that is useful to decision makers and captures what matters most to patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liliana Rincon-Gonzalez
- Medical Device Innovation Consortium, 1655 N Ft. Myer Drive, 12th Floor, Arlington, VA 22209 USA
| | | | - Brett Hauber
- Pfizer, New York, NY USA ,CHOICE Institute, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, WA USA
| | - Shelby D. Reed
- Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC USA
| | - Michelle E. Tarver
- Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, MD USA
| | | | - Andrew W. Lo
- Laboratory for Financial Engineering Department of Electrical, Engineering and Computer Science Sloan School of Management; and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA USA ,Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM USA
| | | | - Barry Liden
- USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, Los Angeles, CA USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Falahee M, Simons G, DiSantostefano RL, Valor Méndez L, Radawski C, Englbrecht M, Schölin Bywall K, Tcherny-Lessenot S, Kihlbom U, Hauber B, Veldwijk J, Raza K. Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e045851. [PMID: 36916312 PMCID: PMC8039213 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2020] [Revised: 02/09/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project 'Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle' (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit-risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Falahee
- Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Gwenda Simons
- Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Larissa Valor Méndez
- Department of Internal Medicine and Institute for Clinical Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | - Ulrik Kihlbom
- Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Brett Hauber
- Health Preference Assessment, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
- Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Karim Raza
- Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Rheumatology, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research and Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre Versus Arthritis, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Methodological Priorities for Patient Preferences Research: Stakeholder Input to the PREFER Public-Private Project. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 14:449-453. [PMID: 33721265 PMCID: PMC8357654 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00502-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
|
7
|
Advancing the Use of Patient Preference Information as Scientific Evidence in Medical Product Evaluation: A Summary Report of the Patient Preference Workshop. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2020; 12:553-557. [PMID: 31696436 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00396-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
8
|
Huls SPI, Whichello CL, van Exel J, Uyl-de Groot CA, de Bekker-Grob EW. What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2019; 22:1318-1328. [PMID: 31708070 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 04/25/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate. OBJECTIVE This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA. METHODS A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned. RESULTS Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based. CONCLUSIONS This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samare P I Huls
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Chiara L Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Job van Exel
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Carin A Uyl-de Groot
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Esther W de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cook NS, Cave J, Holtorf AP. Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs. Front Med (Lausanne) 2019; 6:82. [PMID: 31069227 PMCID: PMC6491461 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2018] [Accepted: 04/02/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Although patient preferences have been studied broadly for marketed products or around the time of submission to authorities and launch, patient preference studies have rarely been used during the early drug development phases. In this paper, we formulate three hypotheses supporting the use of patient preference studies in early product development: (1) integration of the patient perspective into the development process from phase 1 onwards will result in healthcare solutions with outcomes that best address patients' needs; (2) a structured process to build patient-based evidence involving partnerships between patients and other key stakeholders will improve alignment of development activities with the needs of patients; (3) quantitative patient preference research built on robust qualitative insights is necessary to strengthen development decisions in the interests of patients. To illustrate such a structured process, we describe qualitative insights research (social media analysis and online bulletin boards) and quantitative patient preference studies in dry eye disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis conducted during early product development by a pharmaceutical company to generate patient-based evidence. The outputs from such early patient preference studies are being used to inform patient reported outcome strategies, clinical development strategies, product design and delivery features, and form the basis for early dialog with regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers to ensure focus and alignment on patient-relevant endpoints. Furthermore, to discuss and theoretically substantiate our hypotheses, we review how different groups and organizations are working to embrace fully the patient perspective in product development and healthcare decision-making. The hypotheses are commensurate with the general trend toward patient-centered healthcare and the activities initiated by regulators, HTA agencies, and patient organizations. We advocate that all healthcare players should actively contribute to aligning on best practices concerning choice of methodologies and engage in multi-stakeholder dialog along the entire product development chain, to realize health technologies that best meet the needs of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Julie Cave
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Symposium Title: Preference Evidence for Regulatory Decisions. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2019; 11:467-473. [PMID: 29845480 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0311-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
11
|
Johnson FR, Yang JC, Reed SD. The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2019; 22:157-160. [PMID: 30711059 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 115] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2018] [Revised: 06/18/2018] [Accepted: 07/17/2018] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop a tool for testing internal validity of discrete choice experiment (DCE) data, deploy the program, and collect summary test results from a sample of active health researchers to demonstrate the practical utility of the tool in a wide range of health applications. METHODS A previously developed Gauss program had been in use for testing internal validity. The program was translated to MATLAB and adapted, compiled, and deployed. Sixty-seven authors who had coauthored one or more published DCE studies between 2013 and 2016 were contacted by email; provided access to the tool, instructions, and an example data file; and invited to submit test summaries for tabulation. RESULTS Twenty-one researchers from 10 countries contributed test results from a total of 55 DCE data sets. Fifty-one studies included at least two out of a possible six tests. Attribute dominance was the most common test, and stability had the highest failure incidence. Only three summaries included a transitivity test, and no failures were detected. CONCLUSIONS It was possible to evaluate multiple internal validity checks for most data sets even when the experimental design did not explicitly include tests. Nevertheless, internal validity is rarely reported. Free availability of the tool for testing data quality could improve both reporting and more careful design of DCE studies to help validate and interpret stated preference data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Reed Johnson
- Preference Evaluation Research (PrefER) Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
| | - Jui-Chen Yang
- Preference Evaluation Research (PrefER) Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Shelby D Reed
- Preference Evaluation Research (PrefER) Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Pignatti F, Péan E. Regulatory and Evidence Requirements and the Changing Landscape in Regulation for Marketing Authorisation. Recent Results Cancer Res 2019; 213:169-187. [PMID: 30543013 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01207-6_11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
In this chapter, we describe the changing landscape of the EU pharmaceutical legislation concerning regulation and evidence requirements for marketing authorisation. First, we describe the legal requirements for marketing authorisation and the development of EU pharmaceutical legislation and the concept of risk-benefit balance. Second, we describe special types of authorisation, such as conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances, and special provisions such as incentives for orphan medicinal products and paediatric investigational plans. Lastly, we describe the available methodological guidelines focussing on choice of endpoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Pignatti
- European Medicines Agency, 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, UK.
| | - Elias Péan
- European Medicines Agency, 30 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Mott DJ. Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind? PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 11:249-252. [PMID: 29500706 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- David John Mott
- Office of Health Economics, Southside 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Engagement of Canadian Patients with Rare Diseases and Their Families in the Lifecycle of Therapy: A Qualitative Study. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 11:353-359. [PMID: 29299833 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0293-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient involvement is increasingly recognized as critical to the development, introduction and use (i.e. the lifecycle) of new and effective therapies, particularly those for rare diseases, where natural histories and the impact on patients and families are less well-understood than for common diseases. However, little is known about how patients and families would like to be involved during the lifecycle. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore ways in which Canadian patients with rare diseases and their families would like to be involved in the lifecycle of therapies and identify their priorities for involvement. METHODS Patients with rare diseases and their families were recruited to participate in two deliberative sessions, during which concepts related to decision-making uncertainty and the technology lifecycle were introduced before eliciting input around ways in which they could be involved. This was followed by a webinar, which was used to further identify opportunities for involvement. The data were then analyzed qualitatively using eclectic coding. RESULTS Patients and families identified opportunities that fell into three goals: (1) incorporation of their 'lived experience' in coverage decision making (i.e. decisions by governments on funding new therapies); (2) improved care for patients; and (3) greater awareness of rare diseases, with the first being a priority. CONCLUSIONS Opportunities for patients and families to contribute their 'lived experience' are needed throughout the orphan drug lifecycle, but the ideal mechanisms for providing this input have yet to be determined.
Collapse
|
15
|
van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, Juhaeri J, Levitan B, Kübler J, de Bekker-Grob E, Huys I. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today 2018; 24:57-68. [PMID: 30266656 DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 09/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline van Overbeeke
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Chiara Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rosanne Janssens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Irina Cleemput
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Steven Simoens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Janssen Research & Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, P.O. Box 200, Titusville, NJ 08560, USA
| | - Jürgen Kübler
- Quantitative Scientific Consulting, Europabadstr. 8, 35041 Marburg, Germany
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Gonzalez JM. Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 11:285-300. [DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0295-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
|