Benefit-Risk or Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment

Treatment preferences of adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: A discrete choice experiment

PRODUCTS with janus kinase (JAK) inhibition have been shown to promote hair regrowth in patients with alopecia areata (AA). To guide drug-approval and treatment decisions, it is important to understand patients' willingness to accept the potential risks of JAK inhibition in exchange for potential benefits. We quantified the treatment preferences of adult (≥18 years) and adolescent patients (12-17 years) with AA in the US and Europe to determine the trade-offs they are willing to make between benefits and risks. Preferences for oral AA treatment attributes were elicited using a discrete choice experiment consisting of 12 tasks in which patients chose between two hypothetical treatment alternatives and no treatment. Benefits included the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth (Severity of Alopecia Tool score ≤ 20) and achieving moderate-to-normal eyebrow and eyelash hair. Treatment-related risks included 3-year probabilities of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots. Preference estimates were used to calculate the maximum level of each risk that patients were willing to accept for increases in treatment benefits. The most important attribute to both adults (n = 201) and adolescents (n = 120) was a 50% probability of achieving hair regrowth on most or all the scalp; however, adolescents placed greater relative importance on this attribute than did adults. Adults were averse to the risks of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots, whereas adolescents were averse to the risk of cancer. For a 20% increase in the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth, adults were willing to accept a mean (95% confidence interval) 3-year risk of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots of 7.4% (5.5-9.3), 2.5% (1.9-3.1), and 9.3% (6.4-12.2). Adolescents were willing to accept a 3-year risk of cancer of 3.3% (2.4-4.2). Patients with AA in the US and Europe are willing to accept substantial risks to obtain an effective treatment.

Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments

Health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs) information can be used to inform decision-making on the development, authorisation, reimbursement and marketing of drugs and devices as well as treatments in clinical practice. Discrete choice experiment is a stated preference method based on random utility theory (RUT), which imposes strong assumptions on respondent choice behaviour. However, respondents may use choice processes that do not adhere to the normative rationality assumptions implied by RUT, applying simplifying decision rules that are more selective in the amount and type of processed information (i.e., simplifying heuristics). An overview of commonly detected simplifying heuristics in health-related DCEs is lacking, making it unclear how to identify and deal with these heuristics; more specifically, how researchers might alter DCE design and modelling strategies to accommodate for the effects of heuristics. Therefore, the aim of this paper is three-fold: (1) provide an overview of common simplifying heuristics in health-related DCEs, (2) describe how choice task design and context as well as target population selection might impact the use of heuristics, (3) outline DCE design strategies that recognise the use of simplifying heuristics and develop modelling strategies to demonstrate the detection and impact of simplifying heuristics in DCE study outcomes.

Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Have Heterogeneous Treatment Preferences That Are Largely Determined by the Avoidance of Abdominal Pain and Side Effects [P-POWER IBD Study]

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patient-centric management of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is important, with consensus considering patient-reported outcomes alongside clinical and endoscopic assessment by healthcare providers. However, evidence regarding patients' treatment priorities is still limited. This study aimed to elicit benefit-risk trade-offs that patients with IBD are willing to make, to help inform discussions about patient-centric treatment targets.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional online survey of adults with self-confirmed Crohn's disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC] receiving IBD treatment. The impact of efficacy, administration and safety on treatment preferences was elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Relative attribute importance [RAI] and maximum acceptable risk of mild-to-moderate side effects [SEs] were estimated from a mixed logit model.

RESULTS

In total, 400 patients [CD: 54%; UC: 46%; female: 38.0%; age range: 18-78 years] were recruited. Efficacy, administration and safety affected treatment preferences to varying degrees, with abdominal pain being most important [RAI 33%] followed by risks of mild-to-moderate SEs [RAI 27%] and serious infections [RAI 16%]. To reduce abdominal pain from severe to moderate/mild, patients accepted an additional 18.8% or 30.6% risk of mild-to-moderate SEs, respectively. While average preferences between patients with CD and UC were similar, patients with CD placed greater importance on abdominal pain [p < 0.05], and patients with UC on bowel urgency [p < 0.05]. However, preferences varied notably.

CONCLUSIONS

While avoiding abdominal pain, SEs and serious infections had on average the highest treatment priority, preferences varied between patients. Treatment strategies should consider the trade-offs individuals are willing to make.

Patients' Preferences for Connected Insulin Pens: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

This study quantified how people with diabetes value the unique features of connected insulin pens and related mobile apps, and the underlying reasons for preferring connected versus non-connected insulin pens.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in the USA and UK to elicit preferences of adults (≥ 18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes for attributes of insulin pens. Attributes included device type, dosing support, glucose monitoring, additional app features, and data sharing. Relative attribute importance (RAI) scores were calculated to capture the relative importance of an attribute. Predicted choice probabilities were obtained to compare different profiles for connected and non-connected insulin pens.

RESULTS

The DCE was completed by 540 participants (58.9% male; 90.7% Caucasian; mean age, 58.3 years; 69.4% type 2 diabetes). Participants most valued the possibility of using a connected insulin pen with dosing support and automated dose logging (RAI = 39.9%), followed by automatic transfer of glucose levels (RAI = 29.0%), additional features of tracking diet and physical activity (RAI = 14.6%), data sharing (RAI = 13.6%), and device type (RAI = 2.9%). All profiles of connected insulin pens were preferred over a non-connected pen (p < 0.001), and pen profiles with advanced features were preferred over those without (p < 0.001). Preferences differed by age but not diabetes type, country of residence, or insulin regimen.

CONCLUSION

People with diabetes in the USA and UK prefer connected over non-connected insulin pens due largely to the availability of automated logging of dose and glucose levels.

Clinicians' preferences for managing aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage using endothelin receptor antagonists

Background

The endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) clazosentan is being investigated for the medical prevention of cerebral vasospasm and associated complications, such as delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). This study quantified how clinicians weigh the benefits and risks of ERAs for DCI prevention to better understand their treatment needs and expectations.

Methods

An online choice experiment was conducted to elicit preferences of neurologists, intensivists, and neurosurgeons treating aSAH in the US and UK for the use of ERAs. The design of the choice experiment was informed by a feasibility assessment (N = 100), one-on-one interviews with clinicians (N = 10), a qualitative pilot (N = 13), and a quantitative pilot (N = 50). Selected treatment attributes included in the choice experiment were: one benefit (likelihood of DCI); and three risks (lung complications, hypotension, and anemia). In the choice experiment, clinicians repeatedly chose best and worst treatment options based on a scenario of a patient being treated in the ICU after aneurism repair. A correlated mixed logit model determined the relative attribute importance (RAI) and associated highest density interval (HDI) as well as acceptable benefit-risk trade-offs.

Results

The final choice experiment was completed by 350 clinicians (116 neurologists, 129 intensivists/intensive care clinicians, and 105 neurosurgeons; mean age, 47.4 years). Reducing the likelihood of DCI (RAI = 56.5% [HDI, 53.6-59.5%]) had the largest impact on clinicians' treatment choices, followed by avoiding the risks of lung complications (RAI = 29.6% [HDI, 27.1-32.3%]), hypotension (RAI = 9.2% [HDI, 7.5-10.8%]), and anemia (RAI = 4.7% [HDI, 3.7-5.8%]). Clinicians expected the likelihood of DCI to decrease by ≥8.1% for a 20% increase in the risk of lung complications, ≥2.4% for a 20% increase in the risk of hypotension, and ≥1.2% for a 20% increase in the risk of anemia.

Conclusions

Clinicians were willing to accept certain increased risks of adverse events for a reduced risk of DCI after aSAH. The likelihood of DCI occurring after aSAH can therefore be considered a clinically relevant endpoint in aSAH treatment development. Thus, evaluations of ERAs might focus on whether improvements (i.e., reductions) in the likelihood of DCI justify the risks of adverse events.

How do study design features and participant characteristics influence willingness to participate in clinical trials? Results from a choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Research about the decision to participate in a clinical study has tended to be limited to single indications and has focused on narrow sets of study and participant characteristics. This study applied stated preference methods to understand the clinical trial design attributes that most influence willingness to participate and how this varied with participant characteristics.

METHODS

Adults residing in the US, China, or Poland with a self-reported diagnosis of cancer, heart disease, migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, or multiple sclerosis completed an online survey. Participants were asked whether they would participate in clinical studies defined by seventeen attributes within five categories (payment/support, administration/procedures, treatment-related, study location/time commitment, and data collection/feedback). Participants saw six different hypothetical clinical study profiles. Depending on their participation decision to an initial clinical study profile, the subsequent five questions had one design attribute (randomly selected per question) consecutively improved or deteriorated to elicit preferences. A logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics influenced participation decisions. A latent class logit model was used to identify how the influence of study design features varied between participants and whether groups of participants with similar preferences could be identified.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 487 participants (32% China, 35% Poland, 33% US; 8%-19% per indication). Willingness to participate was found to be a function of participant age, certain elements of quality of life, and previous treatment experience, in particular number of lines of treatment received and experience of adverse events. Willingness to participate was influenced by study design features such as payment, study duration, and time commitment - both the overall time and whether the time was at home or away from home, with the latter being particularly relevant to participants experiencing fatigue due to their disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study quantifies how study designs influence willingness to participate and how this varies with participant types. These findings suggest that it is how an indication influences quality of life and treatment experience, rather than the indication alone, that impacts participation rates, opening the way for insights that are transferrable across indications, which may be particularly useful when considering rare diseases.

Patient preferences for atopic dermatitis medications in the UK, France and Spain: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to quantify patient preferences for efficacy, safety and convenience features of atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Online discrete choice experiment survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults in the UK, France and Spain who had used AD treatments during the past 2 years.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Preferences for attributes were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Willingness to make trade-offs was expressed as the maximum acceptable decrease (MAD) in the probability of achieving clear/almost clear skin at week 16.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 404 patients (44.1±12.0 years; 65% women; 64% moderate/severe eczema). Most patients (68%) had no prior experience of using self-injectable treatments for AD or any other illness. Participants most valued increasing the chance of achieving a meaningful reduction in itch at week 16 from 20% to 50%, followed by reducing the risks of serious infections from 6% to 0% and of eye inflammation from 20% to 0%. Participants were willing to accept a decrease in the possibility of achieving clear/almost clear skin to obtain a treatment that can be paused (MAD=24.1%), requires occasional check-ups (MAD=16.1%) or no check-ups (MAD=20.9%) over frequent check-ups, is administered as a one time per day or two times per day oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks (MAD=16.6%), has a 2-day over 2-week onset of action (MAD=11.3%), and can be used for flare management (MAD=5.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with AD most valued treatment benefits and risks, they were willing to tolerate reduced efficacy to obtain a rapid onset, oral administration, less frequent monitoring and a treatment that can be paused. Understanding patients' preferences for AD therapies, including new targeted therapies, can aid shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and support health technology assessments.

Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Background

Antithrombotic drugs are used as preventive treatment in patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) in both the acute and chronic phases of the disease. To support patient-centered benefit–risk assessment, it is important to understand the influence of disease stage on patient preferences.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments and whether they differ by MI disease phase.

Methods

A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit preferences of adults in the acute (≤ 365 days before enrolment) or chronic phase (> 365 days before enrolment) of MI for key ischemic events (risk of cardiovascular [CV] death, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal ischemic stroke) and bleeding events (risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage and non-fatal other severe bleeding). Preference data were analyzed using the multinomial logit model. Trade-offs between attributes were calculated as the maximum acceptable increase in the risk of CV death for a decrease in the risk of the other outcomes. To assess the potential effect of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on patient preferences, subgroups were introduced as interaction terms in logit models.

Results

The evaluable population included 155 patients with MI in the acute phase of disease and 180 in the chronic phase. The overall population was 82% male, mean age was 64.2 ± 9.6 years, and 93% had not experienced bleeding events or key ischemic events other than MI. Patients valued reduction in the risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage more than CV death (p < 0.01) and CV death more than non-fatal ischemic events (p < 0.01). Preferences were similar in the acute and chronic populations (p = 0.17). However, older patients valued reduction in risk of MI more than younger patients (p = 0.04), and patients with bleeding risk factors valued reduction in the risk of CV death (p = 0.01) and MI (p = 0.01) less than patients without bleeding risk factors. Also, patients who were at high risk of future ischemic events valued reduction of the risk of CV death less than those at low risk (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments were unaffected by disease stage but varied by bleeding risk and other factors. This heterogeneity in preferences is an important consideration because it can affect the benefit–risk balance and the acceptability of antithrombotic treatments to patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00548-6.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

BACKGROUND

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance.

RESULT

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed.

LIMITATIONS

No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.