1
|
Janssens R, Barbier L, Muller M, Cleemput I, Stoeckert I, Whichello C, Levitan B, Hammad TA, Girvalaki C, Ventura JJ, Bywall KS, Pinto CA, Schoefs E, Katz EG, Kihlbom U, Huys I. How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1192770. [PMID: 37663265 PMCID: PMC10468983 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1192770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2023] [Accepted: 07/12/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosanne Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Liese Barbier
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Irina Cleemput
- Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Global Epidemiology, Janssen R&D, LLC, Pennsylvania, PA, United States
| | | | | | | | - Karin Schölin Bywall
- School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Division of Health and Welfare Technology, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden
- Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Elise Schoefs
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eva G. Katz
- Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ, United States
| | - Ulrik Kihlbom
- Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bridges JFP, de Bekker-Grob EW, Hauber B, Heidenreich S, Janssen E, Bast A, Hanmer J, Danyliv A, Low E, Bouvy JC, Marshall DA. A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023; 26:153-162. [PMID: 36754539 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2022] [Accepted: 12/07/2022] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John F P Bridges
- The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
| | | | | | | | - Ellen Janssen
- Janssen Research & Development, LLC, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | | | | | - Eric Low
- Eric Low Consulting, Haddington, Scotland, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chisholm O, Critchley H. Future directions in regulatory affairs. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023; 9:1082384. [PMID: 36698838 PMCID: PMC9868628 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1082384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2022] [Accepted: 12/20/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
The field of regulatory affairs deals with the regulatory requirements for marketing authorization of therapeutic products. This field is facing a myriad of forces impacting all aspects of the development, regulation and value proposition of new therapeutic products. Changes in global megatrends, such as geopolitical shifts and the rise of the green economy, have emphasized the importance of manufacturing and supply chain security, and reducing the environmental impacts of product development. Rapid changes due to advances in science, digital disruption, a renewed focus on the centrality of the patient in all stages of therapeutic product development and greater collaboration between national regulatory authorities have been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This article will discuss the various trends that are impacting the development of new therapies for alleviating disease and how these trends therefore impact on the role of the regulatory affairs professional. We discuss some of the challenges and provide insights for the regulatory professional to remain at the forefront of these trends and prepare for their impacts on their work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orin Chisholm
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Pharmacy School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Geng J, Bao H, Feng Z, Meng J, Yu X, Yu H. Investigating patients' preferences for new anti-diabetic drugs to inform public health insurance coverage decisions: a discrete choice experiment in China. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:1860. [PMID: 36199056 PMCID: PMC9533494 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14244-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Diabetes is a major public health concern with a considerable impact on healthcare expenditures. Deciding on health insurance coverage for new drugs that meet patient needs is a challenge facing policymakers. Our study aimed to assess patients’ preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anti-diabetic drugs in China. Methods We identified six attributes of new anti-diabetic drugs and used the Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice sets for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The DCE was conducted in consecutive samples of type 2 diabetes patients in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was applied to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity. Results Data from 639 patients were available for analysis. On average, the most valued attribute was the improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (β = 1.383, p < 0.001), followed by positive effects on extending life years (β = 0.787, p < 0.001), and well-controlled glycated haemoglobin (β = 0.724, p < 0.001). The out-of-pocket cost was a negative predictor of their preferences (β = -0.138, p < 0.001). Elderly patients showed stronger preferences for drugs with a lower incidence of serious side effects (p < 0.01) and less out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Patients with diabetes complications favored more in the length of extended life (p < 0.01), improvement in HRQoL (p < 0.05), and less out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001). Conclusion The new anti-diabetic drugs with significant clinical effectiveness and long-term health benefits should become the priority for public health insurance. The findings also highlight the value of accounting for preference heterogeneity in insurance policy-making. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14244-z.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinsong Geng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
| | - Haini Bao
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.,The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, 222061, Lianyungang, Jiangsu, China
| | - Zhe Feng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jingyi Meng
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Xiaolan Yu
- Medical School of Nantong University, 226001, Nantong, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hao Yu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 02215, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cognitively Inspired Multi-attribute Decision-making Methods Under Uncertainty: a State-of-the-art Survey. Cognit Comput 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s12559-021-09916-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
6
|
van Overbeeke E, Forrester V, Simoens S, Huys I. Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives. THE PATIENT 2021; 14:119-128. [PMID: 32856278 PMCID: PMC7794204 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Patient preferences can be informative for health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making. However, applications may be different per country. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate HTA representatives' opinions on whether and how to incorporate patient preferences in HTA in their respective countries. METHODS Three country-specific focus groups were conducted with three to seven HTA representatives from Germany, Belgium, and Canada. A predefined focus group guide was used that covered topics relating to how patient preferences can be used in HTA, namely HTA stage, weight, impact, and quality, as well as a case example of gene therapy. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 following thematic analysis. RESULTS Across all HTA bodies, an interest in the use of patient preferences was observed for scientific advice and value assessments, but not through incorporation in quality-adjusted life-years and multi-criteria decision analysis. HTA representatives found it difficult to determine the weight patient preferences may receive in decision making, but thought it could have an impact on payer decision making if the study is of acceptable quality. CONCLUSIONS In the near future it may be impossible to achieve structural integration of patient preferences with other evidence in HTA (e.g., in cost-effectiveness analysis), but HTA bodies are willing to incorporate patient preferences in other HTA sections as supportive evidence. To allow for that use, future work should focus on meeting HTA and payer needs when conducting patient preference studies and on education of HTA and payer representatives regarding these studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline van Overbeeke
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Valérie Forrester
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Steven Simoens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dubromel A, Duvinage-Vonesch MA, Geffroy L, Dussart C. Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review. JOURNAL OF MARKET ACCESS & HEALTH POLICY 2020; 8:1810905. [PMID: 32944200 PMCID: PMC7482895 DOI: 10.1080/20016689.2020.1810905] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2020] [Revised: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/12/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory. RESULTS We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings. CONCLUSION Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amélie Dubromel
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pharmacie Et Stérilisation Centrales, Saint-Genis-Laval, France
| | | | - Loïc Geffroy
- Laboratory “Systemic Health Care”, EA 4129, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, University of Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Claude Dussart
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pharmacie Et Stérilisation Centrales, Saint-Genis-Laval, France
- Laboratory “Systemic Health Care”, EA 4129, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, University of Lyon, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Janssens R, Huys I, van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Harding S, Kübler J, Juhaeri J, Ciaglia A, Simoens S, Stevens H, Smith M, Levitan B, Cleemput I, de Bekker-Grob E, Veldwijk J. Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019; 19:189. [PMID: 31585538 PMCID: PMC6778383 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-019-0875-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2018] [Accepted: 07/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosanne Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eline van Overbeeke
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Chiara Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sarah Harding
- Takeda International, UK Branch, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE UK
| | | | - Juhaeri Juhaeri
- Sanofi, 55 Corporate Drive, Bridgewater Township, NJ 08807 USA
| | - Antonio Ciaglia
- International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations, 49-51 East Rd, Hoxton, London, N1 6AH UK
| | - Steven Simoens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Hilde Stevens
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Global R&D Epidemiology, Janssen Research & Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, PO Box 200, Titusville, NJ 08560 USA
| | - Irina Cleemput
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Whichello C, van Overbeeke E, Janssens R, Schölin Bywall K, Russo S, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Juhaeri J, Levitan B, Kübler J, Smith M, Hermann R, Englbrecht M, Hueber AJ, Comanescu A, Harding S, Simoens S, Huys I, de Bekker-Grob EW. Factors and Situations Affecting the Value of Patient Preference Studies: Semi-Structured Interviews in Europe and the US. Front Pharmacol 2019; 10:1009. [PMID: 31619989 PMCID: PMC6759933 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2019] [Accepted: 08/08/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives: Patient preference information (PPI) is gaining recognition among the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies/payers for use in assessments and decision-making along the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to identify factors and situations that influence the value of patient preference studies (PPS) in decision-making along the MPLC according to different stakeholders. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with six different stakeholder groups (physicians, academics, industry representatives, regulators, HTA/payer representatives, and a combined group of patients, caregivers, and patient representatives) from seven European countries (the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Romania, Germany, France, and the Netherlands) and the United States. Framework analysis was performed using NVivo 11 software. Results: Fifteen factors affecting the value of PPS in the MPLC were identified. These are related to: study organization (expertise, financial resources, study duration, ethics and good practices, patient centeredness), study design (examining patient and/or other preferences, ensuring representativeness, matching method to research question, matching method to MPLC stage, validity and reliability, cognitive burden, patient education, attribute development), and study conduct (patients’ ability/willingness to participate and preference heterogeneity). Three types of situations affecting the use of PPS results were identified (stakeholder acceptance, market situations, and clinical situations). Conclusion: The factors and situation types affecting the value of PPS, as identified in this study, need to be considered when designing and conducting PPS in order to promote the integration of PPI into decision-making along the MPLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chiara Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Eline van Overbeeke
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Rosanne Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Selena Russo
- Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Global R&D Epidemiology, Janssen Research & Development, Titusville, United States
| | - Jürgen Kübler
- Quantitative Scientific Consulting, Marburg, Germany
| | - Meredith Smith
- Global Patient Safety and Labeling, Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, United States
| | | | - Matthias Englbrecht
- Department of Internal Medicine 3 - Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Axel J Hueber
- Department of Internal Medicine 3 - Rheumatology and Immunology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | - Sarah Harding
- Global Patient Safety, Takeda, London, United Kingdom
| | - Steven Simoens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Esther W de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Poder TG, Beffarat M, Benkhalti M, Ladouceur G, Dagenais P. A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019; 13:933-940. [PMID: 31354247 PMCID: PMC6576121 DOI: 10.2147/ppa.s201401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2019] [Accepted: 04/13/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objectives: Hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) needs to consider all relevant data to help decision making, including patients' preferences. In this study, we comprehensively describe the process of identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to identify attributes and levels explaining low back pain (LBP) patients' choice for a non-surgical treatment. This design combined a systematic literature review with a patients' focus group, one-on-one interactions with experts and patients, and discussions with stakeholder committee members. Following the patient's focus group, preference exercises were conducted. A consensus about the attributes and levels was researched during discussions with committee members. Results: The literature review yielded 40 attributes to consider in patients' treatment choice. During the focus group, one additional attribute emerged. The preference exercises allowed selecting eight attributes for the DCE. These eight attributes and their levels were discussed and validated by the committee members who helped reframe two levels in one of the attributes and delete one attribute. The final seven attributes were: treatment modality, pain reduction, onset of treatment efficacy, duration of efficacy, difficulty in daily living activities, sleep problem, and knowledge about their body and pain. Conclusion: This study is one of the few to comprehensively describe the selection process of attributes and levels for a DCE. This may help ensure transparency and judge the quality of the decision-making process. In the context of a HB-HTA unit, this strengthens the legitimacy to perform a DCE to better inform decision makers in a patient-centered care approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas G Poder
- UETMISSS, CIUSSS de l’Estrie-CHUS, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
- CRCHUS, CIUSSS de l’Estrie-CHUS, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
- Correspondence: Thomas G PoderCRCHUS and UETMISSS, CIUSSS de l’Estrie-CHUS, 1036 Belvédère Sud, SherbrookeJ1H 4C4, CanadaTel + 1 819 346 1110 ext 13496Email
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Janssens R, van Overbeeke E, Verswijvel L, Meeusen L, Coenegrachts C, Pauwels K, Dooms M, Stevens H, Simoens S, Huys I. Patient Involvement in the Lifecycle of Medicines According to Belgian Stakeholders: The Gap Between Theory and Practice. Front Med (Lausanne) 2018; 5:285. [PMID: 30364285 PMCID: PMC6193089 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2018] [Accepted: 09/17/2018] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Patient involvement is often acknowledged as an important aspect of the lifecycle of medicines. Although different typologies exist, patient involvement has been described as the involvement of patients in decision-making regarding medicines. In view of the diversity of stakeholders and types of decisions in which patients might be involved, an in-depth understanding of these stakeholders' views toward involving patients in the lifecycle of medicines is essential. Methods: Interviews and surveys were used to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of Belgian healthcare stakeholders. Interviews (n = 22) were conducted with academics, hospital pharmacists and representatives from health insurance funds, the Belgian reimbursement agency, pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. Surveys (n = 108) were completed by hospital visitors and analyzed descriptively. Results: Despite an increasing amount of efforts to involve patients, interviewees labeled the level of actively involving patients as rather low and scattered across the different phases of the lifecycle of medicines. The main opportunities for patient involvement highlighted by interviewees were for: (i) informing early development decisions on which treatments to develop, (ii) clinical trial endpoint selection and (iii) clinical trial protocol design. However, remaining questions surrounding patient knowledge, and particularly how and which patients to involve represent important barriers toward implementing patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines. Of survey participants, 77% indicated to be willing to participate in patient preference studies. Reasons for participating mentioned most frequently were "to improve development of treatments," because "it is important to explore and listen to patient preferences" and "to have a voice as patients". Conclusions: The barriers identified in this study hamper transitioning patient involvement from theory to practice. Bridging this gap requires addressing the identified barriers and unresolved questions surrounding the right methodology for involving patients, the "right patients" to involve and means to increase patient knowledge. In order to do so, further research should focus on assessing the value of methods that allow to indirectly capture patients' perspective both in the context of development as well as in the context of evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosanne Janssens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eline van Overbeeke
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lotte Verswijvel
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Lissa Meeusen
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Carolien Coenegrachts
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Kim Pauwels
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Marc Dooms
- University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Hilde Stevens
- Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in Healthcare, Université Libre Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Steven Simoens
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, Juhaeri J, Levitan B, Kübler J, de Bekker-Grob E, Huys I. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today 2018; 24:57-68. [PMID: 30266656 DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 09/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eline van Overbeeke
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Chiara Whichello
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rosanne Janssens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Irina Cleemput
- Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Kruidtuinlaan 55, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Steven Simoens
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - Bennett Levitan
- Janssen Research & Development, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, P.O. Box 200, Titusville, NJ 08560, USA
| | - Jürgen Kübler
- Quantitative Scientific Consulting, Europabadstr. 8, 35041 Marburg, Germany
| | - Esther de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Isabelle Huys
- Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49 Box 521, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|