Project Transform: engaging patient advocates to share their perspectives on improving research, treatment and policy

Patient Preferences in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, a Latent Class Analysis to Identify Preference Heterogeneity

OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a chronic, progressive disease of the pulmonary circulation characterized by vascular remodeling that, if untreated, can lead to right heart dysfunction and death. This analysis measured heterogeneity in patient preferences for PAH-specific treatment regimens.

METHOD

Adult patients with PAH with slight to marked limitations during physical activity were recruited through a patient organization in Germany. Participants completed an online best-worst scaling case 3 survey. Patients chose among 3 hypothetical treatment profiles defined by 6 benefits and risks at varying levels. Participants completed 12 choice tasks. Preference heterogeneity was assessed using latent class analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 83 participants (76% female) completed the survey. Best-fit model revealed 4 classes. Class 1 (19% of participants) assigned importance to multiple attributes particularly side effects, class 2 (34%) to physical activity limitations, class 3 (30%) to survival and physical activity limitations, and class 4 (17%) to survival. No differences in sociodemographic characteristics were observed across classes. Compared with other classes, class 4 was most likely to report having marked physical activity limitations (79%) and needing daily help (100%), while considering higher daily activity levels to be ordinary (walking >1 km [71%] or climbing several flights of stairs [50%]).

CONCLUSION

This first patient preference study in a PAH population suggests that physical activity limitations in addition to survival matter most to patients; however, preference heterogeneity between groups of patients was observed. Patient preferences should be considered in treatment decision making to better balance patient's expectations regarding the known risk-benefit ratio of treatment.

Recruitment of patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups and panels in public and patient involved health research: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.

DESIGN

A scoping review.

SETTING

This scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Explore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.

RESULTS

The final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.

CONCLUSION

We conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

Current communication practices for biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer: Exploring patient and clinician perspectives

OBJECTIVES

We qualitatively explored patient and clinician experiences with biomarker testing in one academic health system to identify current communication practices and unmet testing information needs.

METHODS

We conducted 1:1 in-depth interviews with 15 clinicians (i.e., nurses, oncologists, pathologists) and 12 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer between January and May 2022. Participants described experiences with biomarker testing as well as associated communication practices and needs. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Analysis was informed by the Framework Method.

RESULTS

Patients described challenges retaining information early in their patient journey. While patients were generally aware of biomarkers and their effect on treatment options, they expressed limited knowledge of expected time delays between testing and receiving results. Additionally, many did not know their testing results. Clinicians and patients both noted no standard education material on biomarker testing is currently available. They suggested such materials could support patient knowledge and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication between patients and clinicians about biomarker testing is largely delivered through verbal counseling at a time when patients may be cognitively compromised. All participants supported the idea of delivering standard, tangible education materials on biomarker testing to patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Education materials may enhance counseling efforts and patient knowledge.

Patient advocates' views of patient roles in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care: A constructivist grounded theory study

Interprofessional collaborative practice has been shown to be an appropriate model of care for chronic disease management in primary care. However, how patients play a role in this model is relatively unknown. The aim of this constructivist grounded theory focus group study was to explore the perceptions of patient advocates regarding the role of patients in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care. Primary data were collected from patient advocates, from public and private Australian organisations and who represent patients with chronic disease in primary care, through focus groups in July-August 2020. Videoconference focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively, thematically analysed using the five-step approach by Charmaz: (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Three focus groups comprising 17 patient advocates with diverse cultural and professional backgrounds participated. Two themes and five sub-themes relating to interprofessional collaborative practice teams were constructed from the data. In theme 1, patients 'shifted across the spectrum of roles' from 'relinquishing control to the team', 'joining the team' to 'disengaging from the team'. The second theme was the need for 'juggling roles' by 'integrating patient role with life roles', and 'learning about the patient role'. The diversity and variability of patient roles as described by patient advocates highlight the challenges of working with people with chronic conditions. The diverse patient roles described by advocates are an important finding that may better inform communication between patients and health professionals when managing chronic conditions. From the health professional perspective, identification of the role of a patient may be challenging. Therefore, future research should explore the development of a tool to assist both patients and health professionals to identify patient roles as they move across the spectrum, with the support of policy makers. This tool should aim to identify and promote patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care settings.

Stakeholder point of view on prescription drug affordability - a systematic literature review and content analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research were to: 1) understand perspectives on affordability of pharmaceutical drugs from the point of view of stakeholders as reported in published peer-reviewed journals and conferences; 2) evaluate if (and how) perspectives on affordability overlapped across stakeholders.

METHODS

The systematic literature review followed Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Content analysis with iterative and systematic coding of text was conducted, to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 7,372 unique citations were eligible, and 126 articles included for final synthesis. For patients, 6 core themes emerged: financial barriers, adherence, access, patient-provider communication, financial distress, and factors that impact affordability. For payers, 5 core themes: financing schemes, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, private vs. public preferences, and ethics. For providers, 3 themes: patient-provider communication, physician prescribing behavior, and finding alternatives to support patient access. For policymakers, 2 themes: measuring affordability and the role of government. Limited articles representing the manufacturer perspective were identified. Perspectives of decision makers (payers, policymakers) did not overlap with those affected by affordability (patients, providers).

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights the multi-dimensionality of drug "affordability." Multiple factors beyond cost influence patient affordability implying interventions can help alleviate affordability issues for some patients. The lack of overlap highlights potential hazards that decisions related to out-of-pocket spending, insurance coverage, reimbursement, and rationing occur without explicitly considering patient and provider perspectives.

Line of therapy and patient preferences regarding lung cancer treatment: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

A growing literature on patient preferences informs decisions in research, regulatory science, and value assessment, but few studies have explored how preferences vary across patients with differing treatment experience. We sought to quantify patient preferences for the benefits and risks of lung cancer treatment and test how preferences differed by line of therapy (LOT).

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) following rigorous patient and stakeholder engagement. The DCE spanned five attributes (each with three levels): progression-free survival (PFS), short-term side effects, long-term side effects, risk of developing late-onset side effects, and mode of administration (MOA) - each defined across 3 relevant levels. A D-efficient design was used to generate 3 survey blocks of 9 paired-profile choice tasks each and respondents were asked which profile they preferred and then if they preferred to have no treatment (opt-out). A mixed logit model, controlling for opt-out, was used to estimate preferences. Preferences and trade-offs between PFS and other attributes were compared across two groups: those receiving ≤1 LOT and those receiving ≥2 LOT.

RESULTS

Of the 466 participants, 42% received ≤1 LOT and 58% received ≥2 LOT. Stated preferences differed between the groups overall (p<.001) and specifically for 18 months of PFS (p<.001), moderate short-term side effects (p<.001), no long-term side effects (p=.03), and 30% chance of late-onset side effects (p=.02). Those receiving differing amounts of LOT were willing to trade different amounts of PFS to change from moderate to mild short-term side effects (p<.001), moderate to no (p<.001) and mild to no (p<.001) long-term side effects. There were also differing amounts of tradeoff acceptable between the groups for a 10% decrease in risk of late-onset side effects (p=.016), a decrease in MOA from infusion every 3 weeks to pills taken daily at any time (p=.005) and from pills taken daily without food to pills taken daily at any time (p<.001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate differences in preferences based on experience with LOT, suggesting that patient treatment experience may have an impact on their preferences. As patient preference data become an important component of treatment decision making, preference differences should be considered when recommending therapies at different stages in the treatment journey. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to informing shared decision-making and ensuring treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals.

Lessons from an Experiential Approach to Patient Community Engagement in Rare Disease

Meaningful engagement between biopharmaceutical companies and patient communities has increasingly become an important part of the therapeutic-development process, as such engagement improves the understanding of the multifaceted challenges and unmet needs that communities experience and provides an opportunity to inform the approach to the development of new therapies and services. Presented here are learnings from a community-advisor program designed to engage families of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in a manner that enabled caregivers to make valuable contributions to the therapeutic-development process and to the DMD community. Parents of children with DMD, representing the broader DMD community, were identified in partnership with patient-advocacy organizations and invited to participate in a community-advisor meeting with members of Wave Life Sciences. The community-advisor meeting was designed to provide participants with an opportunity to share their personal experiences with DMD, to help to inform the therapeutic-development process, and to identify potential solutions for addressing unmet needs. Three community-advisor meetings were held with a total of 30 parents, representing 36 children with DMD. Key themes that emerged from the advisors' discussion included the importance of the community's emotional and mental support, the inconsistencies in DMD care, the increased challenges and disparities faced by underserved communities, and the need for more comprehensive, holistic approaches to the treatment and management of DMD. The advisors viewed the meetings as an opportunity to share their voices with a biopharmaceutical company, coupled with the advantage of meeting other families living with similar challenges. Most of the advisors stated that this was their first advisor meeting. This community-focused approach empowered participants to voice their needs and perspectives, to brainstorm potential solutions for addressing those needs, and to initiate and foster connections in ways that had a considerable impact on one another and on therapeutic-development programs at Wave Life Sciences.

Analysis of Patient Preferences in Lung Cancer - Estimating Acceptable Tradeoffs Between Treatment Benefit and Side Effects

OBJECTIVE

Increased treatment options and longer survival for lung cancer have generated increased interest in patient preferences. Previous studies of patient preferences in lung cancer have not fully explored preference heterogeneity. We demonstrate a method to explore preference heterogeneity in the willingness of patients with lung cancer and caregivers to trade progression-free survival (PFS) with side effects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients and caregivers attending a national lung cancer meeting completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) designed through a collaboration with patients. Participants answered 13 choice tasks described across PFS, short-term side effects, and four long-term side effects. Side effects were coded as a one-level change in severity (none-mild, mild-moderate, or moderate-severe). A mixed logit model in willingness-to-pay space estimated preference heterogeneity in acceptable tradeoffs (time equivalents) between PFS and side effects. The study was reported following quality indicators from the United States Food and Drug Administration's patient preference guidance.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients and 24 caregivers participated in the DCE. Participants would trade 3.7 month PFS (95% CI (CI): 3.3-4.1) for less severe functional long-term treatment side effects, 2.3 months for less severe physical long-term effects (CI: 1.9-2.8) and cognitive long-term effects (CI: 1.8-2.8), 0.9 months (CI: 0.4-1.4) for less severe emotional long-term effects, and 1.8 months (CI: 1.4-2.3) for less severe short-term side effects. Most participants (90%) would accept treatment with more severe functional long-term effects for 8.4 additional month PFS.

CONCLUSION

Participants would trade PFS for changes in short-term side effects and long-term side effects, although preference heterogeneity existed. Lung cancer treatments that offer less PFS but also less severe side effects might be acceptable to some patients.

Patient and caregiver preferences for the potential benefits and risks of a seizure forecasting device: A best-worst scaling

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is the 4th most common neurological disorder and is characterized by recurrent, unpredictable seizures. The ability to forecast seizures is a significant unmet need and would have a transformative effect on the lives of people living with epilepsy. In an effort to address this need, the Epilepsy Foundation has committed effort and resources to promote the development of seizure forecasting devices (SFD).

OBJECTIVE

To promote user-centered design of future SFD, we sought to quantify patient and caregiver preferences for the potential benefits and risks of SFD.

METHODS

A community-centered approach was used to develop a survey incorporating a novel best-worst scaling (BWS) to assess preferences for SFD. A main-effect orthogonal array was used to design and generate 18 "prototypes" that systematically varied across six attributes: seizure forecasting probability, seizure forecasting range, inaccuracy of forecasting, amount of time required to use the device, how the device is worn, and cost. The dependent variable was the attributes that respondents selected the best and worst in each profile, and a choice model was estimated using conditional logistic regression, which was also stratified and compared across patients and caregivers. Respondents also indicated that they would accept each of the prototype SFDs if it were real. These acceptance data and net monetary benefits (relative to the least preferred SFD) were explored.

RESULTS

There were 633 eligible respondents; 493 (78%) completed at least one task. Responses indicated that 346 (68%) had epilepsy, and 147 (29%) were primary caregivers or family members of someone with epilepsy. The data show that short forecasting range is the most favored among experimental attributes, followed by mid forecasting range and notification of high chance of seizure. Having the device implanted is the least favorable attribute. Stated preferences differed between patients and caregivers (p < 0.001) for range of forecasting and inaccuracy of device. Caregivers preferred any range of forecasting, regardless of length, more than patients. Patients cared less about inaccuracy of the device compared to caregivers. The groups also differ in impact of fear of having seizures (versus actually having seizures) (p = 0.034) and on device acceptance. The acceptance of devices ranged from 42.3% to 95%, with caregivers being more likely to use a device (p < 0.05) for the majority of device profiles. Acceptance of devices varied with net monetary benefit of the best device being $717.44 more per month relative to the least preferred device.

CONCLUSION

Our finding extends previous calls for seizure forecasting devices by demonstrating the value that they might provide to patients and caregivers affected by epilepsy and the feature that might be most and least desirable. In addition to guiding device development, the data can help inform regulatory decisions makers.

The evolving role of patient preference studies in health-care decision-making, from clinical drug development to clinical care management

Introduction: There is a growing trend of using patient preference studies to help incorporate the patient perspective into clinical drug development, care management, and health-care decision-making. Collecting and interpreting patient preference data is integral to multi-stakeholder engagement, patient-centric drug development, and clinical care management. Operationally, challenges exist in understanding 'when' and 'how' to embark on patient preference studies. This review will provide a brief overview of stated-preference methods, discuss applications throughout the clinical drug development and care management, and highlight how preference studies serve as a powerful tool for quantifying patient experiences for better outcomes. Areas covered: We present case studies to complement the different applications of stated-preference methods in clinical drug development and care management. We discuss the applications of preference data to help inform evidence-based patient advocacy, clinical development strategy, operational feasibility, regulator benefit-risk assessments, health technology assessments, and clinical decision-making. Expert commentary: Patient preference studies can serve as a powerful tool to engage patients and their communities as well as quantify the patient voice across different stages of clinical drug development and care management to support patient-centric health-care decision-making. It is expected that the application of these strategies will quickly advance in the coming years.