How Do Treatment Preferences of Patients With Cancer Compare With Those of Oncologists and Family Members? Evidence From a Discrete Choice Experiment in China

Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

The emergence of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors offered dyslipidemia patients an alternative to statins for lipid-lowering treatment. Understanding patient and physician preferences for lipid-lowering drugs may promote shared decision-making and improve treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This study utilized an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess the relative importance (RI) of six attributes related to lipid-lowering drugs, including frequency of administration, mode of administration, reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, risk of myopathy, risk of liver damage, and out-of-pocket monthly cost. Respondents were recruited from dyslipidemia patients and cardiovascular physicians in China. A mixed logit model and latent class analysis were employed to estimate the preference coefficient, marginal willingness to pay (mWTP), and RI of attributes. Ethical approval has been obtained for this study.

RESULTS

A total of 708 patients and 507 physicians participated in the survey. Patients prioritized the 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 23.6%) with 'mode of administration' (RI = 19.2%) and 'frequency of administration' (RI = 18.8%) following closely. Contrarily, physicians prioritized the 'reduction of LDL-C level' (RI = 33.5%), followed by 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 26.0%) and 'risk of myopathy' (RI = 16.1%). Patients placed a higher value on 'frequency of administration' (p < .001) and 'mode of administration' (p < .001) compared to physicians, while physicians valued 'reduction of LDL-C level' (p < .001) and 'risk of myopathy' (p = .012) more than patients. Physicians exhibited higher mWTP than patients for all attributes except frequency and mode of administration. The LCA revealed three distinct patient classes: focus on oral administration, focus on hepatic safety and frequency and focus on hepatic safety and cost. Likewise, three physician classes were identified: frequency-insensitive, efficacy-focused and safety-focused.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy differed between patients and physicians in China. Physicians should take into account patients' preferences and provide personalized treatment when they formulate lipid-lowering treatment plans.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients participated in the questionnaire design process. They engaged in a focus group discussion to determine attributes and levels and also participated in a pilot survey to assess the comprehensibility of the questionnaires. Additionally, patients were involved in the DCE survey to express their preferences. The findings of patient preference for lipid-lowering drug therapy will promote shared decision-making and optimize the treatment regimen.

Understanding Clinician Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Oncology: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Oncologists' and Urologists' Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced/Unresectable Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Five European Countries

INTRODUCTION

Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK.

METHODS

The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis.

RESULTS

In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians.

CONCLUSION

While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Medication in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma in China: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the relative importance of attributes and the willingness to pay for pharmacological therapies among patients with renal cell carcinoma in China.

METHODS

Patients with renal cell carcinoma completed a D-efficient-designed, discrete-choice experiment online survey that presented a series of ten trade-off questions and one examining scenario. Based on the literature review and consultations with patients with renal cell carcinoma and clinicians, each question included a pair of hypothetical renal cell carcinoma medication profiles characterized by seven attributes including progression-free survival, objective response rate, medication regimen, fatigue, gastrointestinal reaction, hand-foot syndrome, and monthly out-of-pocket costs. Relative importance and willingness to pay were calculated using coefficients estimated by mixed logit regression in the main analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted considering the heterogeneity of the participants, based on sex, education level, and income level, using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

The analysis incorporated responses from 182 Chinese respondents. Except for the medication regimen, all attributes were statistically significant. Progression-free survival was the most important attribute, followed by objective response rate, monthly out-of-pocket costs, fatigue, gastrointestinal reaction, and hand-foot syndrome. Patients were willing to pay ￥2010.51 ($298.30), ￥494.93 ($73.43) for 1 unit improvement of progression-free survival, and objective response rate, and￥7558.93 ($1121.50), ￥6927.24 ($1027.78) to avoid experiencing fatigue and gastrointestinal reaction, respectively. Differences in preferences and willingness to pay were found according to patients' gender, income, and education level.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, patients with renal cell carcinoma preferred medications with better efficacy (objective response rate and progression-free survival) and lower out-of-pocket costs. Heterogeneity can be found in preferences and willingness to pay based on patients' gender, income, and education levels.

Use of Stated Preference Methods in HIV Treatment and Prevention Research in the United States: A Systematic Review

Stated preference (SP) methods are increasingly being applied to HIV-related research and continuously provide researchers with health utility scores of select healthcare products or services that populations consider important. Following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to understand how SP methods have been applied in HIV-related research. We conducted a systematic review to identify studies meeting the following criteria: SP method is clearly stated, conducted in the United States, was published between 01/01/2012 and 02/12/2022, and included adults aged 18 and over. Study design and SP method application were also examined. We identified six SP methods (e.g., Conjoint Analysis, Discrete Choice Experiment) across 18 studies, which were categorized into one of two groups: HIV prevention and HIV treatment-care. Categories of attributes used in SP methods largely focused on: administration, physical/health effects, financial, location, access, and external influences. SP methods are innovative tools capable of informing researchers on what populations consider most beneficial when deciding on treatment, care, or prevention options for HIV.