Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments

GLP-1 receptor agonists for weight reduction in people living with obesity but without diabetes: a living benefit-harm modelling study

Background

The benefit of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) in weight reduction against potential harms remains unclear. This study aimed at evaluating the benefit-harm balance of initiating GLP-1 RAs versus placebo for weight loss in people living with overweight and obesity but without diabetes.

Methods

We performed benefit-harm balance modelling, which will be updated as new evidence emerges. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, controlled trials registry, drug approval and regulatory documents, and outcome preference weights as of April 10, 2024. We synthesize data using pairwise meta-analysis to estimate the effect of GLP-1 RAs to inform the benefit-harm balance modelling. We predicted the absolute effects of the positive and negative outcomes over 1 and 2 years of treatment using exponential models. We applied preference weights to the outcomes, ranging from 0 for least concerning to 1.0 for most concerning. We then calculated whether the benefit of achieving 5% and 10% weight loss outweighed the harms on a common scale. The analyses accounted for the statistical uncertainties of treatment effects, preference weights, and outcome risks.

Findings

We included 8 RCTs involving 8847 participants. The pooled average age was 46.7 years, with the majority being women (74%) and people living with obesity (96%). Of 1000 persons treated with GLP-1 RAs for 2 years, 375 (95% confidence interval 352 to 399) achieved a 10% weight loss, and 318 (296 to 339) achieved a 5% weight loss compared to those treated with placebo. Several harm outcomes were more frequent in the GLP-1 RA group, including 41 abdominal pain events per 1000 persons over 2 years (19 to 69), cholelithiasis (8, 1 to 21), constipation (118, 78 to 164), diarrhoea (100, 42 to 173), alopecia (57, 10 to 176), hypoglycaemia (17, 1 to 68), injection site reactions (4, -3 to 19), and vomiting (110, 80 to 145) among others. Achieving a 10% weight loss with GLP-1 RA therapy outweighed the cumulative harms, with a net benefit probability of 0.97 at year 1 and 0.91 at year 2. The absolute net benefit was equivalent to 104 (100 to 112) per 1000 persons achieving a 10% weight loss over 2 years without experiencing any worrisome harm. A 5% weight loss did not show a net benefit, with probabilities of 0.13 and 0.01 at year 1 and year 2, respectively. However, these benefits were sensitive to preference weights, suggesting that even a 5% weight loss could be net beneficial for individuals with less concern about harm outcomes. The net benefit for a 10% weight loss was highest for semaglutide, followed by liraglutide and tirzepatide, with 2-year probabilities of 0.96, 0.72, and 0.60, respectively.

Interpretation

The benefit of GLP-1 RAs exceeded the harms for weight loss in the first 2 years of treatment, yet the net benefit was dependent on individual' treatment goals (10% or 5% weight loss) and willingness to accept harms in pursuit of weight loss. This implies that treatment decisions have to be personalized to individuals to optimize benefits and reduce harms and overuse of treatments. Due to varying evidence, especially regarding harm outcomes across studies, it is necessary to continuously update and monitor the benefit-harm balance of GLP-1 RAs.

Funding

SNSF and LOOP Zurich.

Treatments for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review, Network Meta-analysis, and Benefit-harm assessment

CONTEXT

Multiple treatments for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) are available, but their effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and benefit-harm balance remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical effectiveness regarding survival and HRQoL, safety, and benefit-harm balance of mHSPC treatments.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, and radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) mutually or with ADT alone were eligible. Three reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Across ten RCTs, we found relevant survival benefits for ADT + docetaxel (high certainty according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), ADT + abiraterone (moderate certainty), ADT + enzalutamide (low certainty), ADT + apalutamide (high certainty), and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide (high certainty) compared with ADT alone. ADT + radiotherapy appeared effective only in low-volume de novo mHSPC. We found a short-term HRQoL decrease lasting 3-6 mo for ADT + docetaxel (moderate certainty) and a potential HRQoL benefit for ADT + abiraterone up to 24 mo of follow-up (moderate certainty) compared with ADT alone. There was no difference in HRQoL for ADT + enzalutamide, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + radiotherapy over ADT alone (low-high certainty). Grade 3-5 adverse effect rates were increased with all systemic combination treatments. A benefit-harm assessment showed high probabilities (>60%) for a net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + enzalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide, while ADT + docetaxel and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide appeared unlikely (<40%) to be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite substantial survival benefits, no systemic combination treatment showed a clear HRQoL improvement compared with ADT alone. We found evidence for a short-term HRQoL decline with ADT + docetaxel and a higher net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + apalutamide and ADT + enzalutamide. While individualized decision-making remains important and economic factors need to be considered, the evidence may support a general preference for the combination of ADT with androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies over docetaxel-containing strategies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We assessed different combination treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. While survival was better with all systemic combination treatments, there was no clear improvement in health-related quality of life compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone. Novel hormonal combination treatments had a more favorable benefit-harm balance than combination treatments that include chemotherapy.

Fingolimod versus interferon beta 1-a: Benefit–harm assessment approach based on TRANSFORMS individual patient data

Background

Fingolimod is a disease-modifying drug approved for multiple sclerosis but its benefit–harm balance has never been assessed compared to other active treatments.

Objectives

Our aim was to compare the benefits and harms of fingolimod with interferon beta-1a using individual patient data from TRial Assessing injectable interferon versus FTY720 Oral in RRMS trial.

Methods

We modelled the health status of patients over time including Expanded Disability Status Scale measurements, relapses and any adverse events. We assessed the mean health status between arms and the proportion of patients whose health deteriorated or improved relatively to baseline, using a prespecified minimal important difference of 4.6. We performed sensitivity analyses to test our assumptions.

Results

Main and sensitivity analyses favoured fingolimod 0.5 mg over interferon beta-1a. The average health status difference was 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.08). Patients on fingolimod 0.5 mg were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35–0.63, p < 0.001) times less likely to experience a relevant decline in health status compared to interferon beta-1a patients, with a number needed to treat of 7.10 [5.18, 11.23].

Conclusions

Fingolimod's net benefit over interferon beta-1a did not reach the clinical relevance over 1 year, but the decreased risk for health status deterioration may be more pronounced more long term and patients may prefer less treatment burden associated with fingolimod. [Formula: see text]

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

[How to assess Person-Centered Care according to professionals? A Delphi study]

Objetivos

Conocer la perspectiva de profesionales sobre aspectos y dimensiones que deberían formar parte indispensable de la Atención Centrada en la Persona (ACP).

Diseño

Técnica Delphi.

Emplazamiento

Atención Primaria.

Participantes

Setenta y cuatro expertos médicos especialistas en medicina familiar y comunitaria (MF), tutores docentes, psicólogos y sociólogos distribuidos por todo el territorio nacional (enero-junio 2015).

Métodos

Respondieron a tres cuestionarios: primero sobre aspectos que debería tener en cuenta un MF para realizar ACP en todas sus dimensiones. En el segundo se preguntó sobre el grado de acuerdo con cada ítem y dimensión en que lo clasificaba. Las respuestas se priorizaron en un tercer cuestionario (escala Likert, rango de puntuación 1-10).

Resultados

La tasa de respuesta (TR) al primer cuestionario fue de 54,05%, obteniéndose 84 ítems, los más frecuentes Respeto y Atención Integral. El 2.° cuestionario con TR = 48,6%, obtuvo 52 ítems con acuerdo superior al 75%. La TR del tercer cuestionario fue de 52,7%, obteniendo 21 ítems con puntuación > 9. Los valores más altos correspondieron a aspectos esenciales de la ACP: respeto, atención integral, enfoque biopsicosocial, autonomía del paciente y participación en la toma de decisiones.

Conclusiones

Se identificaron nuevas dimensiones: Prevención y promoción de la salud, Gestión de Recursos y Competencia Clínica; añadidas a las previamente descritas: Perspectiva biopsicosocial, Médico como persona, Paciente como persona, Relación médico-paciente y Poder y Responsabilidad compartidas.

El respeto, la atención integral, el enfoque biopsicosocial, la autonomía del paciente y su participación en la toma de decisiones, son los aspectos más valorados entre los seleccionados por los profesionales participantes.

Assessing forgetfulness and polypharmacy and their impact on health-related quality of life among patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia in Greece during the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

We estimate the association between forgetfulness to take medications as prescribed and polypharmacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among a cohort of patients with hypertension, dyslipidemia or both in Greece during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A telephone survey of 1018 randomly selected adults was conducted in Greece in June 2020. Participants were included in the survey, if they (a) had a diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidemia or both and (b) were on prescription treatment for these conditions. HRQoL was calculated using the short form (SF) -12 Patient Questionnaire. A multivariable generalized linear regression model (GLM) was used to estimate the association between forgetfulness and polypharmacy and HRQoL, controlling for sociodemographic and health-related covariates.

Results

Overall, 351 respondents met the inclusion criteria, of whom 28 did not fully complete the questionnaire (response rate: 92%, n = 323). Of those, 37% were diagnosed with hypertension only, 28% with dyslipidemia only, and 35% with both. Most reported good to average physical (64.1%) and mental health (48.6%). Overall, 25% indicated that they sometimes forget to take their prescribed medications, and 12% took two or more pills multiple times daily. Total HRQoL score was 68.9% (s.d. = 18.0%). About 10% of participants reported paying less attention to their healthcare condition during the pandemic. Estimates of multivariable analyses indicated a negative association between forgetfulness (− 9%, adjusted β: − 0.047, 95% confidence interval − 0.089 to − 0.005, p = 0.029), taking two or more pills multiple times daily compared to one pill once a day (− 16%, adjusted β: − 0.068, 95% confidence interval − 0.129 to − 0.008, p = 0.028) and total HRQoL.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that among adult patients with hypertension, dyslipidemia or both in Greece, those who forget to take their medications and those with more complex treatment regimens had lower HRQoL. Such patients merit special attention and require targeted approaches by healthcare providers to improve treatment compliance and health outcomes.

Global variation of risk thresholds for initiating statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a benefit-harm balance modelling study

Background

We previously showed that the 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk threshold to initiate statins for primary prevention depends on the baseline CVD risk, age, sex, and the incidence of statin-related harm outcome and competing risk for non-CVD death. As these factors appear to vary across countries, we aimed in this study to determine country-specific thresholds and provide guidelines a quantitative benefit-harm assessment method for local adaptation.

Methods

For each of the 186 countries included, we replicated the benefit-harm balance analysis using an exponential model to determine the thresholds to initiate statin use for populations aged 40 to 75 years, with no history of CVD. The analyses took data inputs from a priori studies, including statin effect estimates (network meta-analysis), patient preferences (survey), and baseline incidence of harm outcomes and competing risk for non-CVD (global burden of disease study). We estimated the risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins were more likely to outweigh the harms using a stochastic approach to account for statistical uncertainty of the input parameters.

Results

The 5^th and 95^th percentiles of the 10-year risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins outweigh the harms across 186 countries ranged between 14 and 20% in men and 19–24% in women, depending on age (i.e., 90% of the country-specific thresholds were in the ranges stated). The median risk thresholds varied from 14 to 18.5% in men and 19 to 22% in women. The between-country variability of the thresholds was slightly attenuated when further adjusted for age resulting, for example, in a 5^th and 95^th percentiles of 14–16% for ages 40–44 years and 17–21% for ages 70–74 years in men. Some countries, especially the islands of the Western Pacific Region, had higher thresholds to achieve net benefit of statins at 25–36% 10-year CVD risks.

Conclusions

This extensive benefit-harm analysis modeling shows that a single CVD risk threshold, irrespective of age, sex and country, is not appropriate to initiate statin use globally. Instead, countries need to carefully determine thresholds, considering the national or subnational contexts, to optimize benefits of statins while minimizing related harms and economic burden.