International Experiences in Quantitative Benefit-Risk Analysis to Support Regulatory Decisions

Preferences for Anaemia Treatment Attributes among Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease

INTRODUCTION

Information about patient preferences for the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is scarce. Hence, our aim was to examine how patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD valued attributes of alternative hypothetical anaemia treatments.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in adult patients who reported a clinical diagnosis of CKD-related anaemia. Treatment attributes included mode and frequency of administration, need for iron supplementation, risk of gastrointestinal side effects, risk of major cardiovascular events and impact on energy levels (as defined by the vitality section of the SF-6D health index). Logit models were used to analyse patients' preferences.

RESULTS

The DCE was completed by 200 patients in four countries. Patients preferred an oral mode of administration. Patients were willing to tolerate a 5.1% (95% CI 2.0-8.3%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event and an 11.7% (95% CI 5.0-18.5%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects to switch from an at-home subcutaneous injection administered once every 2 weeks to an at-home oral pill administered three times a week. Patients were willing to tolerate a 20.3% (95% CI 15.0-25.6%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and an 8.9% (95% CI 6.1-11.7%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event to transition from 'Sometimes having a lot of energy' to 'Always having a lot of energy'.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD-related anaemia demonstrated clear treatment preferences and were willing to accept increased gastrointestinal or cardiovascular risks in exchange for more energy or an oral treatment.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies

Background

Online survey-based methods are increasingly used to elicit preferences for healthcare. This digitization creates an opportunity for interactive survey elements, potentially improving respondents’ understanding and/or engagement.

Objective

Our objective was to understand whether, and how, training materials in a survey influenced stated preferences.

Methods

An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit public preferences for a new targeted approach to prescribing biologics (“biologic calculator”) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with conventional prescribing. The DCE presented three alternatives, two biologic calculators and a conventional approach (opt out), described by five attributes: delay to treatment, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, infection risk, and cost saving to the national health service. Respondents were randomized to receive training materials as plain text or an animated storyline. Training materials contained information about RA and approaches to treatment and described the biologic calculator. Background questions included sociodemographics and self-reported measures of task difficulty and attribute non-attendance. DCE data were analyzed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit (HCL) models.

Results

In total, 300 respondents completed the DCE, receiving either plain text (n = 158) or the animated storyline (n = 142). The HCL showed the estimated coefficients for all attributes aligned with a priori expectations and were statistically significant. The scale term was statistically significant, indicating that respondents who received plain-text materials had more random choices. Further tests suggested preference homogeneity after accounting for differences in scale.

Conclusions

Using animated training materials did not change the preferences of respondents, but they appeared to improve choice consistency, potentially allowing researchers to include more complex designs with increased numbers of attributes, levels, alternatives or choice sets.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The importance of understanding patient and physician preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics: a systematic review of discrete-choice experiments

Introduction: Treatment adherence continues to be a major challenge in psoriasis. Patient preference studies, especially discrete-choice experiments, are gaining popularity to gather insights into patient reported treatment outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to critically assess all discrete choice experiments exploring patients' and physicians' preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics.Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using keywords "psoriasis" and "preferences" to identify relevant literature. Discrete-choice experiments conducted in French or English from the year 2000 onwards, that focused on evaluating psoriasis treatment preferences in patients and/or physicians, were included. The relative importance of treatment attributes was assessed and studies were critically appraised using validated checklists.Results: Out of 987 articles identified, 25 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, patients and physicians prioritize efficacy-specific outcomes. Patients are shown to place greater importance to process attributes when compared to physicians, especially route and location of administration. Physicians focus primarily of efficacy attributes, however when the top two attributes are considered, safety outcomes increasingly become considered important. Of the studies, 60% conducted subgroup analysis, of which many reported associations between specific patient characteristics and preferences. Factors such as age, disease severity, and duration of condition significantly affected preferences for treatment attributes.Conclusions: This review provides insight into the types of attributes that patients and physicians value most, and therefore can help improve shared decision-making. The findings of this study also encourage regulatory agencies to continue integrating patient preferences in their decision-making.

Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review

Developing and/or tailoring psychological interventions to align with patient preferences is a critical component of patient-centered care and has the potential to improve patient engagement and treatment outcomes. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative method of assessing patient preferences that offer numerous strengths (i.e., ability to account for trade-offs), but are not routinely incorporated into health psychology coursework, likely leaving many unaware of the potential benefits of this methodology. To highlight the potential applications of DCEs within health psychology, this systematic review synthesises previous efforts to utilise DCEs to inform the design of patient-centered psychological care, defined as interventions targeting psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety) or behavioural health (e.g., pain management, adherence) concerns. Literature searches were conducted in March 2017 and November 2019 for articles reporting on DCEs using the terms 'discrete choice', 'conjoint', or 'stated preference'. Thirty-nine articles met all inclusion criteria and used DCEs to understand patient preferences regarding psychosocial clinical services (n = 12), lifestyle behaviour change interventions (n = 11), HIV prevention and/or intervention services (n = 10), disease self-management programmes (n = 4), or other interventions (n = 2). Clinical implications as well as limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

"I Was Trying to Do the Maths": Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Risk is increasingly used as an attribute in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). However, risk and probabilities are complex concepts that can be open to misinterpretation, potentially undermining the robustness of DCEs as a valuation method. This study aimed to understand how respondents made benefit-risk trade-offs in a DCE and if these were affected by the communication of the risk attributes.

METHODS

Female members of the public were recruited via local advertisements to participate in think-aloud interviews when completing a DCE eliciting their preferences for a hypothetical breast screening programme described by three attributes: probability of detecting a cancer; risk of unnecessary follow-up; and cost of screening. Women were randomised to receive risk information as either (1) percentages or (2) percentages and icon arrays. Interviews were digitally recorded then transcribed to generate qualitative data for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nineteen women completed the interviews (icon arrays n = 9; percentages n = 10). Analysis revealed four key themes where women made references to (1) the nature of the task; (2) their feelings; (3) their experiences, for instance making analogies to similar risks; and (4) economic phenomena such as opportunity costs and discounting.

CONCLUSION

Most women completed the DCE in line with economic theory; however, violations were identified. Women appeared to visualise risk whether they received icon arrays or percentages only. Providing clear instructions and graphics to aid interpretation of risk and qualitative piloting to verify understanding is recommended. Further investigation is required to determine if the process of verbalising thoughts changes the behaviour of respondents.

Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform the Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines: Are We Ready Yet?

There is emerging interest in the use of discrete choice experiments as a means of quantifying the perceived balance between benefits and risks (quantitative benefit-risk assessment) of new healthcare interventions, such as medicines, under assessment by regulatory agencies. For stated preference data on benefit-risk assessment to be used in regulatory decision making, the methods to generate these data must be valid, reliable and capable of producing meaningful estimates understood by decision makers. Some reporting guidelines exist for discrete choice experiments, and for related methods such as conjoint analysis. However, existing guidelines focus on reporting standards, are general in focus and do not consider the requirements for using discrete choice experiments specifically for quantifying benefit-risk assessments in the context of regulatory decision making. This opinion piece outlines the current state of play in using discrete choice experiments for benefit-risk assessment and proposes key areas needing to be addressed to demonstrate that discrete choice experiments are an appropriate and valid stated preference elicitation method in this context. Methodological research is required to establish: how robust the results of discrete choice experiments are to formats and methods of risk communication; how information in the discrete choice experiment can be presented effectually to respondents; whose preferences should be elicited; the correct underlying utility function and analytical model; the impact of heterogeneity in preferences; and the generalisability of the results. We believe these methodological issues should be addressed, alongside developing a 'reference case', before agencies can safely and confidently use discrete choice experiments for quantitative benefit-risk assessment in the context of regulatory decision making for new medicines and healthcare products.