Partnership and consent in MS treatment choice

For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? - A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used.

METHODS

We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2).

RESULTS

From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice.

Impairment in oral medical comprehension in multiple sclerosis

In multiple sclerosis (MS), medical comprehension of website information and informed consent is reported to be impaired. The aim of the present study was to investigate oral medical comprehension of literal, figurative and humorous language in MS through videos of physician-patient exchanges. A group of 35 MS patients was compared to a control group (38 healthy participants). Participants were shown twelve filmed sketches consisting of a patient's question followed by the doctor's response and had to choose the meaning of the physician's response among three possibilities. Group analyses (non-parametric tests, Mann-Whitney) revealed significantly lower scores for MS patients compared to controls for figurative and humorous items. The opposite was observed for literal items. At the individual level, 17% of MS patients were impaired in their comprehension of figurative items and 32% for humorous items. Among them, 20% were impaired in both categories, 20% selectively in figurative comprehension and 60% selectively in humorous comprehension. These preliminary results suggest that a high proportion of MS patients (40%) may be impaired in the non-literal comprehension of simple medical responses. The better performances obtained for literal items suggest a more concrete linguistic decoding in MS. On a theoretical level, the double dissociations shown between figurative and humorous items in patients are not compatible with a serial model of linguistic processing.

Development and usability testing of a patient decision aid for newly diagnosed relapsing multiple sclerosis patients

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often struggle with treatment decisions, in part due to the increasing number of approved disease modifying therapies, each with different characteristics, and also since physicians can struggle to identify which of these characteristics matter most to each individual patient. Decision uncertainty can contribute to late treatment initiation and treatment non-adherence-causes of 'undertreatment' in MS. An interactive online patient decision aid that informs patients of their options, considers their individual preferences and goals, and facilitates conversations with their physicians, could improve how patients with relapsing forms of MS make evidence-based treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a prototype patient decision aid (PtDA) for first-line disease modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

Informed by previous studies and International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines, a prototype PtDA was developed for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis considering first line treatment. Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis were recruited from the University of British Columbia's Multiple Sclerosis Clinic to participate in either an online survey or a focus group. Online survey participants completed the PtDA, followed by measures of acceptability, usability, and preparedness for decision-making, and provided general feedback. Focus group participants assessed usability of the revised PtDA. The analysis of qualitative and quantitative data led to improvements of the PtDA prototype.

RESULTS

The prototype PtDA received high ratings for acceptability and usability, and after its use, participants reported high-levels of preparedness for decision-making. Analysis of all qualitative data identified three key themes: the need for credible information; the usefulness of the PtDA; and the importance of normalizing and sharing experiences. Nine content areas were identified for revision. Overall, participants found the PtDA to be a valuable tool for facilitating treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This mixed methods study has led to the development of a PtDA that can support patients with RRMS as they make treatment decisions. Future studies will assess the feasibility of implementation and the impact of the PtDA on both the timely treatment initiation and longer-term adherence.

Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision-making in neurology clinics: a mixed-methods study

Background

We report follow-on research from our previous qualitative analysis of how neurologists offer patients choice in practice. This focus reflects the NHS’s emphasis on ‘patient choice’ and the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to enact it. Our primary study identified practices for offering choice, which we called ‘patient view elicitors’ (PVEs) and ‘option-listing’. However, that study was not designed to compare these with recommendations or to analyse the consequences of selecting one practice over another.

Objectives

To (1) map out (a) the three decision-making practices – recommending, PVEs and option-listing – together with (b) their interactional consequences; (2) identify, qualitatively and quantitatively, interactional patterns across our data set; (3) statistically examine the relationship between interactional practices and self-report data; and (4) use the findings from 1–3 to compare the three practices as methods for initiating decision-making.

Design

A mixed-methods secondary analysis of recorded neurology consultations and associated questionnaire responses. We coded every recommendation, PVE and option-list together with a range of variables internal (e.g. patients’ responses) and external to the consultation (e.g. self-reported patient satisfaction). The resulting matrix captured the qualitative and quantitative data for every decision.

Setting and participants

The primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.

Results

Distribution of practices – recommending was the most common approach to decision-making. Patient demographics did not appear to play a key role in patterning decisional practices. Several clinical factors did show associations with practice, including (1) that neurologists were more likely to use option-lists or PVEs when making treatment rather than investigation decisions, (2) they were more certain about a diagnosis and (3) symptoms were medically explained. Consequences of practices – option-lists and PVEs (compared with recommendations) – were strongly associated with choice by neurologists and patients. However, there was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction relating to practices employed. Recommendations were strongly associated with a course of action being agreed. Decisions containing PVEs were more likely to end in rejection. Option-lists often ended in the decision being deferred. There was no relationship between length of consultation and the practice employed.

Limitations

A main limitation is that we judged only outcomes based on the recorded consultations and the self-report data collected immediately thereafter. We do not know what happened beyond the consultation.

Conclusions

Patient choice is harder to enact than policy directives acknowledge. Although there is good evidence that neurologists are seeking to enact patient choice, they are still more likely to make recommendations. This appears to be partly due to concerns that ‘choice’ might conflict with doctors’ duty of care. Future guidance needs to draw on evidence regarding choice in practice to support doctors and patients to achieve the wider goal of shared decision-making.

Future research

To advance understanding of how interactional practices might have effects beyond the clinic, a priority is to investigate associations between decision-making practices and external outcomes (such as adherence).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals

BACKGROUND

Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients' preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs).

METHODS

We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category.

RESULTS

Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients' goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers' goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.

Treatment with disease-modifying drugs for people with a first clinical attack suggestive of multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

The treatment of multiple sclerosis has changed over the last 20 years. The advent of disease-modifying drugs in the mid-1990s heralded a period of rapid progress in the understanding and management of multiple sclerosis. With the support of magnetic resonance imaging early diagnosis is possible, enabling treatment initiation at the time of the first clinical attack. As most of the disease-modifying drugs are associated with adverse events, patients and clinicians need to weigh the benefit and safety of the various early treatment options before taking informed decisions.

OBJECTIVES

1. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for the treatment of a first clinical attack suggestive of MS compared either with placebo or no treatment;2. to assess the relative efficacy and safety of disease-modifying drugs according to their benefit and safety;3. to estimate the benefit and safety of disease-modifying drugs that have been evaluated in all studies (randomised or non-randomised) for treatment started after a first attack ('early treatment') compared with treatment started after a second attack or at another later time point ('delayed treatment').

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO trials registry, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, and searched for unpublished studies (until December 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and observational studies that evaluated one or more drugs as monotherapy in adult participants with a first clinical attack suggestive of MS. We considered evidence on alemtuzumab, azathioprine, cladribine, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate, immunoglobulins, interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a (Rebif®, Avonex®), laquinimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, rituximab and teriflunomide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two teams of three authors each independently selected studies and extracted data. The primary outcomes were disability-worsening, relapses, occurrence of at least one serious adverse event (AE) and withdrawing from the study or discontinuing the drug because of AEs. Time to conversion to clinically definite MS (CDMS) defined by Poser diagnostic criteria, and probability to discontinue the treatment or dropout for any reason were recorded as secondary outcomes. We synthesized study data using random-effects meta-analyses and performed indirect comparisons between drugs. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) along with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We estimated the absolute effects only for primary outcomes. We evaluated the credibility of the evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials, eight open-label extension studies (OLEs) and four cohort studies published between 2010 and 2016. The overall risk of bias was high and the reporting of AEs was scarce. The quality of the evidence associated with the results ranges from low to very low. Early treatment versus placebo during the first 24 months' follow-upThere was a small, non-significant advantage of early treatment compared with placebo in disability-worsening (6.4% fewer (13.9 fewer to 3 more) participants with disability-worsening with interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) or teriflunomide) and in relapses (10% fewer (20.3 fewer to 2.8 more) participants with relapses with teriflunomide). Early treatment was associated with 1.6% fewer participants with at least one serious AE (3 fewer to 0.2 more). Participants on early treatment were on average 4.6% times (0.3 fewer to 15.4 more) more likely to withdraw from the study due to AEs. This result was mostly driven by studies on interferon beta 1-b, glatiramer acetate and cladribine that were associated with significantly more withdrawals for AEs. Early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.60). Comparing active interventions during the first 24 months' follow-upIndirect comparison of interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) with teriflunomide did not show any difference on reducing disability-worsening (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.66). We found no differences between the included drugs with respect to the hazard of conversion to CDMS. Interferon beta-1a (Rebif®) and teriflunomide were associated with fewer dropouts because of AEs compared with interferon beta-1b, cladribine and glatiramer acetate (ORs range between 0.03 and 0.29, with substantial uncertainty). Early versus delayed treatmentWe did not find evidence of differences between early and delayed treatments for disability-worsening at a maximum of five years' follow-up (3% fewer participants with early treatment (15 fewer to 11.1 more)). There was important variability across interventions; early treatment with interferon beta-1b considerably reduced the odds of participants with disability-worsening during three and five years' follow-up (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84 and OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89). The early treatment group had 19.6% fewer participants with relapses (26.7 fewer to 12.7 fewer) compared to late treatment at a maximum of five years' follow-up and early treatment decreased the hazard of conversion to CDMS at any follow-up up to 10 years (i.e. over five years' follow-up HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.73). We did not draw any conclusions on long-term serious AEs or discontinuation due to AEs because of inadequacies in the available data both in the included OLEs and cohort studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-quality evidence suggests a small and uncertain benefit with early treatment compared with placebo in reducing disability-worsening and relapses. The advantage of early treatment compared with delayed on disability-worsening was heterogeneous depending on the actual drug used and based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that the chances of relapse are less with early treatment compared with delayed. Early treatment reduced the hazard of conversion to CDMS compared either with placebo, no treatment or delayed treatment, both in short- and long-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence suggests that early treatment is associated with fewer participants with at least one serious AE compared with placebo. Very low-quality evidence suggests that, compared with placebo, early treatment leads to more withdrawals or treatment discontinuation due to AEs. Difference between drugs on short-term benefit and safety was uncertain because few studies and only indirect comparisons were available. Long-term safety of early treatment is uncertain because of inadequately reported or unavailable data.

Perception of risk and shared decision making process in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has changed considerably in recent years thanks to the introduction of ever-more-powerful drugs. Unfortunately, the higher efficacies of these therapies are associated with increased risks of severe adverse events. In this scenario, neurologists and persons with MS (pwMSs) must now balance benefits and risks when making decisions regarding MS management. Areas covered: This review highlights the importance of the risk perception of pwMSs and their neurologists in the shared decision-making process in MS management, taking into account different ways improve the empowerment and engagement of pwMSs. Expert commentary: The shared decision-making process in MS is strongly influenced by an individual's risk perception, which is dynamic and influenced by the personal, emotional, social, and experiential factors of both the pwMSs and neurologists.

Delivering patient choice in clinical practice: a conversation analytic study of communication practices used in neurology clinics to involve patients in decision-making

Background

The NHS is committed to offering patients more choice. Yet even within the NHS, the meaning of patient choice ranges from legal ‘rights to choose’ to the ambition of establishing clinical practice as a ‘partnership’ between doctor and patient. In the absence of detailed guidance, we focused on preciselyhowto engage patients in decision-making.

Objectives

To contribute to the evidence-base about whether or not, and how, patient choice is implemented to identify the most effective communication practices for facilitating patient choice.

Design

We used conversation analysis to examine practices whereby neurologists offer choice. The main data set consists of audio- and video-recorded consultations. Patients completed pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and neurologists completed the latter.

Setting and participants

The study was conducted in neurology outpatient clinics in Glasgow and Sheffield. Fourteen neurologists, 223 patients and 120 accompanying others took part.

Results

Patients and clinicians agreed that choice had featured in 53.6% of consultations and that choice was absent in 14.3%. After 32.1% of consultations,eitherpatientorneurologist thought choice was offered. The presence or absence of choice was not satisfactorily explained by quantitatively explored clinical or demographic variables. For our qualitative analysis, the corpus was divided into four subsets: (1) patient and clinician agree that choice was present; (2) patient and clinician agree that choice was absent; (3) patient ‘yes’, clinician ‘no’; and (4) patient ‘no’, clinician ‘yes’. Comparison of all subsets showed that ‘option-listing’ was the only practice for offering choice that was presentonly(with one exception, which, as we show, proves the rule) in those consultations for which participantsagreed there was a choice. We show how option-listing can be used to engage patients in decision-making, but also how very small changes in the machinery of option-listing [for instance the replacement or displacement of the final component of this practice, the patient view elicitor (PVE)] can significantly alter the slot for patient participation. In fact, a slightly modified form of option-listing can be used to curtail choice. Finally, we describe two forms of PVE that can be used to hand a single-option decision to the patient, but which, we show, can raise difficulties for patient choice.

Conclusions

Choice features in the majority of recorded consultations. If doctors want to ensure a patient knows she or he has a choice, option-listing is likely to be best understood by patients as an invitation to choose. However, an important lesson from this study is that simply asking doctors to adopt a practice (like option-listing) will not automatically lead to a patient-centred approach. Our study shows that preciselyhowa practice is implemented is crucial.

Future research

Future research should investigate (1) links between the practices identified here and relevant outcome measures (like adherence); (2) whether being given a choice is better or worse for patients than receiving a doctor’s recommendation, taking account of clinical and demographic factors; and (3) how our approach could be fruitfully applied in other settings.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Patient preferences for disease-modifying drugs in multiple sclerosis therapy: a choice-based conjoint analysis

OBJECTIVES

With an increasing number of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS), patient preferences will gain importance in the decision-making process. We assessed patients' implicit preferences for oral versus parenteral DMTs and identified factors influencing patients' treatment preference.

METHODS

Patients with relapsing-remitting MS (n = 156) completed a questionnaire assessing treatment preferences, whereby they had to decide between pairs of hypothetical treatment scenarios. Based on this questionnaire a choice-based conjoint analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment frequency and route of administration showed a stronger influence on patient preference compared with frequency of mild side effects. The latter attribute was more important for treatment-naïve patients compared with DMT-experienced patients. The higher the Extended Disability Status Scale score, the more likely pills, and the less likely fewer side effects were preferred. Pills were preferred over injections by 93% of patients, when treatment frequency and frequency of side effects were held constant. However, preference switched to injections when pills had to be taken three times daily and injections only once per week. Injections were also preferred when pills were associated with frequent side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that route of administration and treatment frequency play an important role in the patients' preference for a given DMT.

Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices

Understanding patient preferences facilitates shared decision-making and focuses on patient-centered outcomes. Little is known about relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patient preferences for disease modifying therapies (DMTs). We use choice based conjoint (CBC) analysis to calculate patient preferences for risk/benefit trade-offs for hypothetical DMTs.

METHODS

Patients with RRMS were surveyed between 2012 and 2013. Our CBC survey mimicked the decision-making process and trade-offs of patients choosing DMTs, based on all possible DMT attributes. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyzed preferences. We estimated maximum acceptable risk trade-offs for various DMT benefits.

RESULTS

Severe side-effect risks had the biggest impact on patient preference with a 1% risk, decreasing patient preference five-fold compared to no risk. (OR=0.22, p<0.001). Symptom improvement was the most preferred benefit (OR=3.68, p<0.001), followed by prevention of progression of 10 years (OR=2.4, p<0.001). Daily oral administration had the third highest DMT preference rating (OR=2.08, p<0.001). Patients were willing to accept 0.08% severe risk for a year delayed relapse, and 0.22% for 4 vs 2 year prevented progression.

CONCLUSION

We provided patient preferences and risk-benefit trade-offs for attributes of all available DMTs. Evaluation of patient preferences is a key step in shared decision making and may significantly impact early drug initiation and compliance.