1
|
Mott DJ, Hitch J, Nier S, Pemberton-Whiteley Z, Skedgel C. Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia in the United Kingdom: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence 2024; 18:1243-1255. [PMID: 38911590 PMCID: PMC11192962 DOI: 10.2147/ppa.s442530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2023] [Accepted: 05/02/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Acute leukemia is a cancer of the white blood cells which progresses rapidly and aggressively. There are two types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The latter has a rare subtype: acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). For some patients, following first-line treatment, remission is not achieved ("refractory disease"), and for others the leukemia returns after achieving remission ("relapse"). For these individuals, outcomes are typically poor. It is, therefore, important to understand patients' treatment priorities in this context. Methods Building upon formative qualitative research, an online survey containing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to explore patients' treatment preferences in the relapsed/refractory setting. The DCE attributes were mode of administration; quality of life during treatment; chance of response; duration of response; and quality of life during response. Each respondent completed twelve scenarios containing two hypothetical treatments. Participants were eligible if they lived in the United Kingdom and had a diagnosis of acute leukemia. The data were analysed using a latent class model. Results A total of 95 patients completed the survey. The latent class analysis identified two classes. For both, chance of response was the most important attribute. For class 1, every attribute was important, whereas for class 2, the only important attributes were quality of life (during treatment and response) and chance of response. A greater proportion of respondents would fall into class 1 overall, and those with ALL or APL and those more recently diagnosed were more likely to be in class 2. Conclusion Our results indicate that patients are strongly concerned about the chance of response, as well as quality of life (to a lesser extent), when faced with different treatment options in the relapsed/refractory setting. However, there is significant preference heterogeneity within the patient population, and other treatment characteristics also matter to many.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jake Hitch
- Office of Health Economics, London, UK
- Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Almeida D, Umuhire D, Gonzalez-Quevedo R, António A, Burgos JG, Verpillat P, Bere N, Sepodes B, Torre C. Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU. Front Med (Lausanne) 2024; 11:1408636. [PMID: 38846141 PMCID: PMC11153762 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1408636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2024] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 06/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diogo Almeida
- Laboratory of Systems Integration Pharmacology, Clinical and Regulatory Science, Research Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Lisbon, Portugal
- Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Denise Umuhire
- Data Analytics and Methods Task Force, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Rosa Gonzalez-Quevedo
- Public and Stakeholders Engagement Department, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Ana António
- Referrals Office, Quality and Safety of Medicines Department, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Juan Garcia Burgos
- Public and Stakeholders Engagement Department, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Patrice Verpillat
- Data Analytics and Methods Task Force, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Nathalie Bere
- Regulatory Practice and Analysis, Medsafe—New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Bruno Sepodes
- Laboratory of Systems Integration Pharmacology, Clinical and Regulatory Science, Research Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Lisbon, Portugal
- Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Carla Torre
- Laboratory of Systems Integration Pharmacology, Clinical and Regulatory Science, Research Institute for Medicines (iMed.ULisboa), Lisbon, Portugal
- Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Johnston KM, Audhya IF, Dunne J, Feeny D, Neumann P, Malone DC, Szabo SM, Gooch KL. Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2024; 22:343-352. [PMID: 38253973 PMCID: PMC11021240 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00869-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES There is increasing interest in expanding the elements of value to be considered when making health policy decisions. To help inform value frameworks, this study quantified preferences for disease attributes in a general public sample and examined which combination of attributes (disease profiles) are considered most important for research and treatment. METHODS A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in a US general population sample, recruited through online consumer panels. Respondents were asked to select one of a set of health conditions they believed to be most important, characterized by attributes defined by a previous qualitative study: onset age; cause of disease; life expectancy; caregiver requirement; symptom burden (characterized by the Health Utilities Index with varying levels of ambulation independence, dexterity limitations, and degree of pain and discomfort); and disease prevalence. A fractional factorial DCE design was implemented using R, and 60 choice sets were generated (separated into blocks of 10 per participant). Data were analyzed using a mixed-logit regression model, and results used to assess the likelihood of preferring disease profiles. Based on individual attribute preferences, overall preferences for disease profiles, including a profile aligned with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), were compared. RESULTS Fifty-two percent of respondents (n = 537) were female, and 70.6% were aged 18-54 years. Attributes considered most important were those related to life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 [1.56-2.27] for a 50% reduction in remaining life expectancy vs no impact), and symptom burden (OR [95% CI] 1.84 [1.47-2.31] for severe vs mild burden). Greater importance was also found for pediatric onset, caregiver requirement, and diseases affecting more people. As an example of disease profile preferences, a DMD-like pediatric inherited disease with 50% reduction in life expectancy, extensive caregiver requirement, severe symptom burden, and 1:5000 prevalence had 2.37-fold higher odds of being selected as important versus an equivalent disease with adult onset and no life expectancy reduction. CONCLUSIONS Of disease attributes included in this DCE, respondents valued higher prevalence of disease, life expectancy and symptom burden as most important for prioritizing research and treatment. Based on expressed attribute preferences, a case study of an inherited pediatric disease involving substantial reductions to length and quality of life and requiring caregiver support has relatively high odds of being identified as important compared to diseases reflecting differing attribute profiles. These findings can help inform expansions of value frameworks by identifying important attributes from the societal perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ivana F Audhya
- Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., 215 First Street, Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Jessica Dunne
- Broadstreet HEOR, 201-343 Railway St., Vancouver, BC, V6A 1A4, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Shelagh M Szabo
- Broadstreet HEOR, 201-343 Railway St., Vancouver, BC, V6A 1A4, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Marsh K, Collacott H, Thomson J, Mauer J, Watt S, Shah K, Hauber B, Garrison L, Dzingina M. Using Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Survival Equivalents (QASE) for the Quantification of Non-health Benefits. THE PATIENT 2024; 17:229-237. [PMID: 38421583 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00676-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/08/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
Interest in using patient preference (PP) data alongside traditional economic models in health technology assessment (HTA) is growing, including using PP data to quantify non-health benefits. However, this is limited by a lack of standardised methods. In this article, we describe a method for using discrete choice experiment (DCE) data to estimate the value of non-health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted survival equivalence (QASE), which is consistent with the concept of value prevalent among HTA agencies. We describe how PP data can be used to estimate QASE, assess the ability to test the face-validity of QASE estimates of changes in mode of administration calculated from five published DCE oncology studies and review the methodological and normative considerations associated with using QASE to support HTA. We conclude that QASE may have some methodological advantages over alternative methods, but this requires DCEs to estimate second-order effects between length and quality of life. In addition, empirical work has yet to be undertaken to substantiate this advantage and demonstrate the validity of QASE. Further work is also required to align QASE with normative objectives of HTA agencies. Estimating QASE would also have implications for the conduct of DCEs, including standardising and defining more clear attribute definitions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin Marsh
- Evidera, 201 Talgarth Rd, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | - Koonal Shah
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK
| | - Brett Hauber
- Pfizer, New York, NY, USA
- The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Louis Garrison
- The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hiligsmann M, Liden B, Beaudart C, Germeni E, Hanna A, Joshi M, Koola CP, Stein B, Tonkinson M, Marshall D, Fifer S. HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2024; 40:e17. [PMID: 38439624 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462324000138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2024]
Abstract
This research sought to assess whether and how patient preference (PP) data are currently used within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and affiliated organizations involved in technology/drug appraisals and assessments. An exploratory survey was developed by the PP Project Subcommittee of the HTA International Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group to gain insight into the use, impact, and role of PP data in HTA, as well as the perceived barriers to its incorporation. Forty members of HTA bodies and affiliated organizations from twelve countries completed the online survey. PP data were reported to be formally considered as part of the HTA evidence review process by 82.5 percent of the respondents, while 39.4 percent reported that most of the appraisals and assessments within their organization in the past year had submitted PP data. The leading reason for why PP data were not submitted in most assessments was time/resource constraints followed by lack of clarity on PP data impact. Participants reported that PP data had a moderate level of influence on the deliberative process and outcome of the decision, but a higher level of influence on the decision's quality. Most (81.8 percent) felt patient advocacy groups should be primarily responsible for generating and submitting this type of evidence. Insights from the survey confirm the use of PP data in HTA but reveal barriers to its broader and more meaningful integration. Encouragingly, participants believe obstacles can be overcome, paving the way for a second phase of research involving in-depth collaborative workshops with HTA representatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mickael Hiligsmann
- Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Barry Liden
- Public Policy, USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Charlotte Beaudart
- NARILIS (NAmur Research Institute for LIfe Sciences), University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
| | - Evi Germeni
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Alissa Hanna
- Patient Engagement, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Maya Joshi
- Community and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Barry Stein
- Colorectal Cancer Canada (CCC), Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Mandy Tonkinson
- Public Involvement Programme, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK
| | - Deborah Marshall
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Simon Fifer
- Community and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Galekop MMJ, Uyl-de Groot C, Redekop WK. Economic Evaluation of a Personalized Nutrition Plan Based on Omic Sciences Versus a General Nutrition Plan in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Modeling Study Based on Trial Data in Denmark. PHARMACOECONOMICS - OPEN 2024; 8:313-331. [PMID: 38113009 PMCID: PMC10883904 DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00461-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/26/2023] [Indexed: 12/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since there is no diet that is perfect for everyone, personalized nutrition approaches are gaining popularity to achieve goals such as the prevention of obesity-related diseases. However, appropriate choices about funding and encouraging personalized nutrition approaches should be based on sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this study, we assessed whether a newly developed personalized plan (PP) could be cost-effective relative to a non-personalized plan in Denmark. METHODS Results of a 10-week randomized controlled trial were combined with a validated obesity economic model to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness. In the trial, the intervention group (PP) received personalized home-delivered meals based on metabolic biomarkers and personalized behavioral change messages. In the control group these meals and messages were not personalized. Effects were measured in body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Costs [euros (€), 2020] were considered from a societal perspective. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was assessed using a multi-state Markov model. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS In the trial, no significant differences were found in the effectiveness of PP compared with control, but wide confidence intervals (CIs) were seen [e.g., BMI (-0.07, 95% CI -0.51, 0.38)]. Lifetime estimates showed that PP increased costs (€520,102 versus €518,366, difference: €1736) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (15.117 versus 15.106, difference: 0.011); the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was therefore high (€158,798 to gain one QALY). However, a 20% decrease in intervention costs would reduce the ICUR (€23,668 per QALY gained) below an unofficial gross domestic product (GDP)-based willingness-to-pay threshold (€47,817 per QALY gained). CONCLUSION On the basis of the willingness-to-pay threshold and the non-significant differences in short-term effectiveness, PP may not be cost-effective. However, scaling up the intervention would reduce the intervention costs. Future studies should be larger and/or longer to reduce uncertainty about short-term effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04590989).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Carin Uyl-de Groot
- Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - William Ken Redekop
- Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Szabo SM, Hawkins NS, Germeni E. The extent and quality of qualitative evidence included in health technology assessments: a review of submissions to NICE and CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2023; 40:e6. [PMID: 38126273 PMCID: PMC10859830 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462323002829] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Qualitative methods allow in-depth exploration of patient experiences and can provide context for healthcare decision making. Frameworks for patient-based evidence in health technology assessment (HTA) are expanding; yet, how extensively qualitative methods are currently used is unclear. This review characterized the extent and quality of qualitative data submitted to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for HTA. METHODS NICE and CADTH submissions from September 2019 to August 2021 were reviewed. Submission characteristics and features of patient-based evidence included within submissions were extracted. The quality of qualitative reporting was assessed using the CASP checklist. RESULTS Patient-based evidence was included in 83/107 NICE and 119/124 CADTH submissions. A small proportion described qualitative data collection (NICE=14; CADTH=24) and analysis (NICE=6; CADTH=9) methods. One-to-one interviews were the most common data collection method, and thematic analysis was exclusively used. Thirty-three percent of NICE submissions scored >7 yes responses on CASP, versus 78 percent of CADTH submissions. CONCLUSIONS Although patient-based evidence was common in the submissions reviewed, only 14/107 NICE and 24/124 CADTH submissions involved formal qualitative data collection. Use of formal analysis methods was even rarer and reporting tended to be brief. At present, there is little guidance about qualitative evidence most likely to be informative and therefore to potentially impact decision making. Ensuring, however, that qualitative data are collected and analyzed in a systematic, rigorous way will maximize their usefulness and ensure that patient voices are clearly heard.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shelagh M. Szabo
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Neil S. Hawkins
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Evi Germeni
- Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fu R, Ng V, Liu M, Wells D, Yurga E, Nauenberg E. Considering patient perspectives in economic evaluations of health interventions. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1212583. [PMID: 37876714 PMCID: PMC10593459 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1212583] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/26/2023] [Accepted: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Current guidelines for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of health interventions commonly recommend the use of a payer and/or a societal perspective. This raises the concern that the resulting reimbursement decision may overlook the full spectrum of impacts and equity considerations. In this paper, we argue that a potential solution is to supplement a societal- or payer-perspective economic evaluation with an additional evaluation accounting for exclusively the patient perspective. We present five categories of health interventions for which a patient-perspective analysis may be informative including those (1) that cross the definitional boundary between drugs and non-drug technologies; (2) affect patient adherence to protocol; (3) represent revolutionary treatments for genetic disorders; (4) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio involving slightly less effective, but substantially less costly, than the current standard; and (5) have been previously approved for funding but now being targeted for potential delisting or disinvestment. Real-world examples are discussed in detail. Lived experience individuals were invited to provide vignettes. Discussions are provided regarding how to incorporate patient inputs to improve patient-centered decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rui Fu
- Department of Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Vivian Ng
- Roche Diagnostics, Laval, QC, Canada
| | - Michael Liu
- Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States
| | - David Wells
- The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Nanaimo, BC, Canada
| | - Emre Yurga
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Eric Nauenberg
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Ontario Ministry of Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Nguyen HM, Baradaran M, Daigle G, Nshimyumukiza L, Guertin JR, Reinharz D. Pregnant women's and policymakers' preferences for the expansion of noninvasive prenatal screening: A discrete choice experiment approach study. Health Sci Rep 2023; 6:e1516. [PMID: 37636285 PMCID: PMC10447874 DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.1516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2023] [Revised: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Background and Aims Quantitative approaches for eliciting preferences for new interventions are mostly conducted by patients and rarely by policymakers. This study aimed to quantify the preferences of pregnant women and policymakers regarding the addition of a new test to prenatal screening programs for detecting chromosomal abnormalities. Methods A discrete choice experiment was conducted to measure the respondents' preferences for a new prenatal test. A seven-attribute instrument was built based on interviews with pregnant women and policymakers. The data were analyzed using robust conditional logistic regression and nested logit models. Results In total, 272 pregnant women and 24 policymakers completed the questionnaire (response rates of 48% and 55%, respectively). Overall, all attributes were statistically significant in the pregnant women group, whereas only three attributes (test performance, degree of test result certainty, and cost) were statistically significant in the policymakers group. Statistically significant differences in test performance and information were observed between the two groups. Conclusion Policymakers differed from pregnant women in their appraisal of attributes related to their preference for a new prenatal screening intervention. The low response rates observed in both groups suggest that further investigation of the relevance of this approach must be conducted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hung Manh Nguyen
- Département de médecine sociale et préventiveUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
| | - Mohammad Baradaran
- Département de génie électrique et de génie informatiqueUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
| | - Gaétan Daigle
- Département de mathématiques et de statistiqueUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
| | - Leon Nshimyumukiza
- Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociauxQuébecCanada
- Faculté des sciences infirmièresUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
| | - Jason Robert Guertin
- Département de médecine sociale et préventiveUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de QuébecUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
| | - Daniel Reinharz
- Département de médecine sociale et préventiveUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Muir JM, Radhakrishnan A, Freitag A, Ozer Stillman I, Sarri G. Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1197259. [PMID: 37521458 PMCID: PMC10372435 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1197259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product's value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from "if" to "how" additional value elements can inform decision-making.
Collapse
|
11
|
Tatlock S, Sully K, Batish A, Finbow C, Neill W, Lines C, Brennan R, Adlard N, Backhouse T. Individual Differences in the Patient Experience of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RMS): A Multi-Country Qualitative Exploration of Drivers of Treatment Preferences Among People Living with RMS. THE PATIENT 2023:10.1007/s40271-023-00617-y. [PMID: 37017920 PMCID: PMC10074350 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00617-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 04/06/2023]
Abstract
AIMS The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, values and preferences of people living with relapsing multiple sclerosis (PLwRMS) focusing on their treatments and what drives their treatment preferences. METHODS In-depth, semi-structured, qualitative telephone interviews were conducted using a purposive sampling approach with 72 PLwRMS and 12 health care professionals (HCPs, MS specialist neurologists and nurses) from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada. Concept elicitation questioning was used to elicit PLwRMS' attitudes, beliefs and preferences towards features of disease-modifying treatments. Interviews with HCPs were conducted to inform on HCPs' experiences of treating PLwRMS. Responses were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and then subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS Participants discussed numerous concepts that were important to them when making treatment decisions. Levels of importance participants placed on each concept, as well as reasons underpinning importance, varied substantially. The concepts with the greatest variability in terms of how much PLwRMS found them to be important in their decision-making process were mode of administration, speed of treatment effect, impact on reproduction and parenthood, impact on work and social life, patient engagement in decision making, and cost of treatment to the participant. Findings also demonstrated high variability in what participants described as their ideal treatment and the most important features a treatment should have. HCP findings provided clinical context for the treatment decision-making process and supported patient findings. CONCLUSIONS Building upon previous stated preference research, this study highlighted the importance of qualitative research in understanding what drives patient preferences. Characterized by the heterogeneity of the RMS patient experience, findings indicate the nature of treatment decisions in RMS to be highly individualized, and the subjective relative importance placed on different treatment factors by PLwRMS to vary. Such qualitative patient preference evidence could offer valuable and supplementary insights, alongside quantitative data, to inform decision making related to RMS treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophi Tatlock
- Adelphi Values, Adelphi Mill, Grimshaw Lane, Bollington, SK10 5JB, Cheshire, UK.
| | - Kate Sully
- Adelphi Values, Adelphi Mill, Grimshaw Lane, Bollington, SK10 5JB, Cheshire, UK
| | - Anjali Batish
- Adelphi Values, Adelphi Mill, Grimshaw Lane, Bollington, SK10 5JB, Cheshire, UK
| | - Chelsea Finbow
- Adelphi Values, Adelphi Mill, Grimshaw Lane, Bollington, SK10 5JB, Cheshire, UK
| | - William Neill
- Adelphi Values, Adelphi Mill, Grimshaw Lane, Bollington, SK10 5JB, Cheshire, UK
| | - Carol Lines
- Novartis Pharma AG, 4002, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Tamara Backhouse
- University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Geng J, Bao H, Feng Z, Meng J, Yu X, Yu H. Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:1860. [PMID: 36199056 PMCID: PMC9533494 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14244-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Diabetes is a major public health concern with a considerable impact on healthcare expenditures. Deciding on health insurance coverage for new drugs that meet patient needs is a challenge facing policymakers. Our study aimed to assess patients’ preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anti-diabetic drugs in China. Methods We identified six attributes of new anti-diabetic drugs and used the Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice sets for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE was conducted in consecutive samples of type 2 diabetes patients in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was applied to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity. Results Data from 639 patients were available for analysis. On average, the most valued attribute was the improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (β = 1.383, p < 0.001), followed by positive effects on extending life years (β = 0.787, p < 0.001), and well-controlled glycated haemoglobin (β = 0.724, p < 0.001). The out-of-pocket cost was a negative predictor of their preferences (β = -0.138, p < 0.001). Elderly patients showed stronger preferences for drugs with a lower incidence of serious side effects (p < 0.01) and less out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Patients with diabetes complications favored more in the length of extended life (p < 0.01), improvement in HRQoL (p < 0.05), and less out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001). Conclusion The new anti-diabetic drugs with significant clinical effectiveness and long-term health benefits should become the priority for public health insurance. The findings also highlight the value of accounting for preference heterogeneity in insurance policy-making. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14244-z.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinsong Geng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
| | - Haini Bao
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.,The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, 222061, Lianyungang, Jiangsu, China
| | - Zhe Feng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jingyi Meng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Xiaolan Yu
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hao Yu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 02215, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sevilla JP. The value of vaccines. Curr Opin Immunol 2022; 78:102243. [PMID: 36156412 DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2022.102243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2022] [Revised: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/11/2022] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Optimizing vaccine spending depends on recognizing the full value of vaccination (VoV). Existing taxonomies of such value are not comprehensive because they are not guided by general theories. I rely on two such theories: subjective-value theory claims that what has value is determined by what people actually or ideally want in life. A welfarist theory of government states that a fundamental objective of government is to promote social value (or social welfare). These jointly imply that any aspect of life that individuals actually or ideally value and that could be negatively affected by vaccine-preventable diseases (and therefore positively affected by preventive vaccines) is an element of VoV. I build a more comprehensive-value taxonomy than currently exists based on this implication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J P Sevilla
- Data for Decisions, LLC, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Schoefs E, Vermeire S, Ferrante M, Sabino J, Lambrechts T, Avedano L, Haaf I, De Rocchis MS, Broggi A, Sajak-Szczerba M, Saldaña R, Janssens R, Huys I. What are the unmet needs and most relevant treatment outcomes according to patients with inflammatory bowel disease? A qualitative patient preference study. J Crohns Colitis 2022; 17:379-388. [PMID: 36165579 PMCID: PMC10069611 DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS As more therapeutic options with their own characteristics become available for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), drug development and individual treatment decision-making needs to be tailored towards patients' preferences and needs. This study aimed to understand patient preferences among IBD patients, and their most important treatment outcomes and unmet needs. METHODS This qualitative study consisted of 1) a scoping literature review, 2) two focus group discussions (FGDs) with IBD patients (n=11) using the nominal group technique, and 3) two expert panel discussions. RESULTS IBD patients discussed a multitude of unmet needs regarding their symptoms, side-effects, psychological and social issues for which they would welcome improved outcomes. Particularly, IBD patients elaborated on the uncertainties and fears they experienced regarding the possible need for surgery or an ostomy, the effectiveness and onset of action of their medication, and its long-term effects. Furthermore, participants extensively discussed the mental impact of IBD and their need for more psychological guidance, support, and improved information and communication with healthcare workers regarding their disease and emotional well-being. The following five characteristics were identified during the attribute grading as most important: prevent surgery, long-term clinical remission, improved quality of life (QoL), occurrence of urgency, and improved labor rate. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that IBD drug development and treatment decision-making needs to improve IBD symptoms and adverse events that significantly impact IBD patients' QoL. Furthermore, this study underscores patients need for a shared decision-making process where their desired treatment outcomes and uncertainties are explicitly discussed and considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elise Schoefs
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Séverine Vermeire
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Aging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Marc Ferrante
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Aging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - João Sabino
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Aging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Tessy Lambrechts
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Luisa Avedano
- European Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Isabella Haaf
- European Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Andrea Broggi
- European Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Roberto Saldaña
- European Federation of Crohn's & Ulcerative Colitis Associations (EFCCA), Madrid, Spain
| | - Rosanne Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Crossnohere NL, Fischer R, Vroom E, Furlong P, Bridges JFP. A Comparison of Caregiver and Patient Preferences for Treating Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. THE PATIENT - PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2022; 15:577-588. [PMID: 35243571 PMCID: PMC8894129 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00574-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
Background and Objectives Caregivers routinely inform medical and regulatory decision making in rare pediatric diseases. While differences in treatment preferences across caregivers and patients have been observed for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, this evidence was limited by small samples of patients and results were confounded by patient age and disease progression. We tested caregiver and patient preference concordance for treating Duchenne. Methods Preferences and demographic/clinical information from 115 caregivers and 107 patients were collected in an international study (response = 80%) using a previously developed discrete-choice experiment consisting of 12 experimentally controlled choice tasks. Each task presented two profiles that varied across four attributes: disease progression, drug failure probability, kidney damage risk, and fracture risk. Caregivers and patients were matched 1:1 based on patient age. We tested for concordance across each task and by comparing caregivers’ and patients’ maximum acceptable risk of drug failure, kidney damage, and fracture for a slowing of disease progression. Results The final analysis included 77 caregivers and 77 patients. No differences were observed in nationality (p = 0.969), disease stage (p = 0.180), or demographic/clinical factors (p = 0.093–0.857); however, patients were more optimistic (p = 0.030). Caregivers and patients chose similarly across tasks (p = 0.101–0.993). To slow disease progression by 1 year, caregivers and patients would tolerate a 9% and 11% increase in drug failure probability, respectively (p = 0.267). Alternatively, they would accept a 3% and 4% increase in the risk of kidney damage (p = 0.719) or a 15% and 20% increase in the risk of fracture (p = 0.534). Conclusions Caregivers and patients had concordant preferences for treating Duchenne. Providers and regulators can trust both caregiver and patient report of preferences to inform medical decision making. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-022-00574-y.
Collapse
|
16
|
Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe—Who Decides the Future? Healthcare (Basel) 2022; 10:healthcare10081594. [PMID: 36011250 PMCID: PMC9408332 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10081594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2022] [Revised: 08/15/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists’ discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.
Collapse
|
17
|
Schubert S, Picker N, Cavlar T, Knop J, Kahraman A, Mohl W. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients' Treatment Preferences Using a Discrete Choice Experiment Technique: The InPuT Study. Adv Ther 2022; 39:2889-2905. [PMID: 35451740 PMCID: PMC9023727 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02143-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ preferences regarding the evolving treatment landscape in Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) based on a discrete choice experiment. Methods Eligible patients (aged 18 years or older) had a confirmed diagnosis of CD or UC and were willing and able to participate in telephone interviews. The survey design is based on a prior literature review, a pilot study, and clinical expert discussions. Preferences related to clinical and practical features of advanced therapies, like tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, anti-integrins, anti-interleukins, and Janus kinase inhibitors, were assessed. Patients were asked to choose between two different hypothetical treatment alternatives visualized in up to 11 choice scenarios. Based on these choices, the relative importance of treatment characteristics was derived from regression coefficients estimated by a conditional logit model. Results Of the 291 patients included, 219 (75%) were eligible for this analysis. Among the evaluated attributes in CD, 1-year remission rate was ranked highest, with 42.3% relevance for the overall decision. The second most important attribute was the frequency of serious adverse events (AE) (25.1%), followed by sustained remission over 2 years (17.8%). Lower importance was assigned to the administration mode (14.6%) and none to the frequency of non-serious AE (0.1%). In UC, preferences were driven by efficacy (25.3% for mucosal healing; 23.4% for corticosteroid-free remission) and the frequency of serious AE (18.3%), followed by the administration mode (18.1%). Also, non-serious AE were classified as relevant factors for decision-making (10.7%), while maintaining remission for at least 2 years showed no significant impact (4.4%). Conclusion For both indications, efficacy outcomes were rated most important, followed by the frequency of serious AE. Variations were mainly found in the evaluation of non-serious AE and sustained remission. Considering patient preferences may improve the effectiveness of available therapies for moderate to severe CD and UC. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02143-z.
Collapse
|
18
|
Marsh K, Krucien N. Evaluating the Consistency of Patient Preference Estimates: Systematic Variation in Survival-Adverse Event Trade-Offs in Patients with Cancer or Cardiovascular Disease. THE PATIENT 2022; 15:69-75. [PMID: 34056700 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00513-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The increased use of patient preference data in healthcare decision making has raised concerns about the reliability and consistency of the estimates generated by patient preference studies. However, literature reviews to assess the consistency of preferences are confounded by heterogeneity in study designs. METHODS This paper adopted a novel approach to evaluating preference consistency: comparing estimates of a single trade-off-the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) between survival improvements and risks of adverse events-across multiple patient groups and using meta-regression to assess whether MRS varied systematically between patients. A log-linear, random effects regression was run, weighted for the sample sizes of studies from which estimates were extracted. RESULTS Using studies identified in published reviews of patient preference data, 42 estimates of MRS were generated from the 12 studies. On average, patients obtained the same utility from a 2.3% reduction in the risk of an adverse event as from a 1-month increase in survival, with a range of 0.002-13.5%. The regression model had an R2 of over 90% and suggests that MRS depended on patients' expected survival and the type of adverse event being traded. CONCLUSION These results suggest that although preferences vary between patients, they may do so in systematic and predictable ways. Further, they do so in ways consistent with societal preferences and decision maker priorities toward end-of-life settings. Further work is required to replicate this result in other patient groups and to explore the consistency of preferences for other treatment attributes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin Marsh
- Evidera, 201 Talgarth Rd, London, W6 8BJ, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Patient-centered health technology assessment: a perspective on engagement in health technology assessment by three patient organizations and a health technology assessment body. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2022; 38:e76. [DOI: 10.1017/s0266462322000587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Patient engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important over the past 20 years. Academic and practitioner literature has produced numerous case studies and best practice accounts of patient involvement practices around the world. This text analyzes the experience of being involved in an Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) HTA review in the United States. The analysis comes from the joint perspective of three patient organizations: Lupus and Allied Diseases Association, Inc.; Lupus Foundation of America; and Black Women’s Health Imperative, as well as ICER. We suggest that meaningful, patient-centered engagement, where patient communities are systematically integrated throughout the review, can be a way of returning to the discipline’s roots focusing on technologies’ societal and ethical impact. It is a process that requires robust commitment from all involved but produces assessments relevant to those directly affected by them.
Collapse
|
20
|
van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, Peerlinck K, Lambert C, Hermans C, Lê PQ, Goldman M, Simoens S, Huys I. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey. Haemophilia 2021; 27:957-966. [PMID: 34472162 PMCID: PMC9293173 DOI: 10.1111/hae.14401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2021] [Revised: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 08/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study was to investigate trade-offs that adult Belgian people with haemophilia (PWH) A and B are willing to make when choosing between prophylactic factor replacement therapy (PFRT) and gene therapy. METHODS The threshold technique was used to quantify the minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) of a switch from PFRT to gene therapy in terms of 'Annual bleeding rate' (ABR), 'Chance to stop prophylaxis' (STOP), and 'Quality of life' (QOL). The design was supported by stakeholder involvement and included an educational tool on gene therapy. Threshold intervals were analysed using interval regression models in Stata 16. RESULTS A total of 117 PWH completed the survey. Mean thresholds were identified for all benefits, but substantial preference heterogeneity was observed; especially for the STOP thresholds, where the distribution of preferences was bimodal. Time spent on the educational tool and residence were found to impact MAB thresholds. The most accepted (88% of PWH) gene therapy profile investigated in this study comprised of zero bleeds per year (vs. six for PFRT), 90% chance to stop prophylaxis, no impact on QoL, and 10 years of follow-up on side effects (vs. 30 for PFRT). CONCLUSIONS Results from this study proved the value of educating patients on novel treatments. Moreover, preference heterogeneity for novel treatments was confirmed in this study. In gene therapy decision-making, preference heterogeneity and the impact of patient education on acceptance should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline van Overbeeke
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - 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, WA, USA
| | - Sissel Michelsen
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | - Cedric Hermans
- Haemophilia Clinic, St-Luc University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Phu Quoc Lê
- Hémato-Oncologie, Hôpital Universitaire des Enfants Reine Fabiola, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Michel Goldman
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Steven Simoens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
How to integrate evidence from patient preference studies into health technology assessment: a critical review and recommendations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2021; 37:e75. [PMID: 36744660 DOI: 10.1017/s0266462321000490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies vary in their use of quantitative patient preference data (PP) and the extent to which they have formalized this use in their guidelines. Based on the authors' knowledge of the literature, we identified six different PP "use cases" that integrate PP into HTA in five different ways: through endpoint selection, clinical benefit rating, predicting uptake, input into economic evaluation, and a means to weight all HTA criteria. Five types of insight are distinguished across the use cases: understanding what matters to patients, predicting patient choices, estimating the utility generated by treatment benefits, estimating the willingness to pay for treatment benefits, and informing distributional considerations. Summarizing the literature on these use cases, we recommend circumstances in which PP can add value to HTA and the further research and guidance that is required to support the integration of PP in HTA. Where HTA places more emphasis on clinical outcomes, novel endpoints are available; or where there are already many treatment options, PP can add value by helping decision makers to understand what matters to patients. Where uptake is uncertain, PP can be used to estimate uptake probability. Where indication-specific utility functions are required or where existing utility measures fail to capture the value of treatments, PP can be used to generate or supplement existing utility estimates. Where patients are paying out of pocket, PP can be used to estimate willingness to pay.
Collapse
|
22
|
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]
|