Developing an instrument to assess patient preferences for benefits and risks of treating acute myeloid leukemia to promote patient-focused drug development

Patient-focused drug development in primary sclerosing cholangitis: Insights on patient priorities and involvement in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

According to the new AASLD Practice Guidance, all patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) should be considered for participation in clinical trials. However, PSC's rarity has posed challenges to characterizing patient interest in trial participation and identifying predictors of patient willingness to participate in drug trials.

METHODS

PSC Partners Seeking a Cure developed the "Our Voices" survey to inform the development of the Externally-Led Patient-Focused Drug Development Forum, an FDA initiative to capture patient experiences and perspectives on drug development.

RESULTS

Of 797 survey respondents from over 30 countries, 536 (67%) identified slowing disease progression as the most important outcome. Eighty-nine percent identified their hepatologist/gastroenterologist as someone they would approach for advice about trials. Although 61% reported being willing to participate in drug trials, only 26% had ever been asked to participate. Notable barriers to trial involvement included unknown long-term risks (71%), long travel times to the study center (32%), and a liver biopsy requirement (27%). On multivariable logistic regression, pruritus (OR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.09-2.40, p = 0.017) was positively associated with willingness to participate in disease-modifying therapy trials, while jaundice (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19-0.61, p < 0.001) and inflammatory bowel disease (OR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42-0.98, p = 0.038) were negatively associated. Pruritus (OR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.50-3.39, p < 0.001) was also independently associated with willingness to participate in symptom treatment trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with PSC report interest in participating in clinical trials, but few have been asked to participate. Referral of patients with PSC by their hepatologist/gastroenterologist to clinical trials and patient education on trial participation are vital to closing the gap between trial interest and participation. Pruritus may serve as a key indicator of patient interest in trial participation.

Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers

Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are a frequently used method to explore the preferences of patients and other decision-makers in health. Pretesting is an essential stage in the design of a high-quality choice experiment and involves engaging with representatives of the target population to improve the readability, presentation, and structure of the preference instrument. The goal of pretesting in DCEs is to improve the validity, reliability, and relevance of the survey, while decreasing sources of bias, burden, and error associated with preference elicitation, data collection, and interpretation of the data. Despite its value to inform DCE design, pretesting lacks documented good practices or clearly reported applied examples. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to define pretesting and describe the pretesting process specifically in the context of a DCE, (2) to present a practical guide and pretesting interview discussion template for researchers looking to conduct a rigorous pretest of a DCE, and (3) to provide an illustrative example of how these resources were operationalized to inform the design of a complex DCE aimed at eliciting tradeoffs between personal privacy and societal benefit in the context of a police method known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG).

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.

Stakeholder Engagement in Designing Attributes for a Discrete Choice Experiment With Policy Implications: An Example of 2 Swiss Studies on Healthcare Delivery

OBJECTIVES

The use of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) has become increasingly popular in health policy development by involving and analyzing the preferences of target groups for different aspects of the policy intervention. In this article, we aim to contribute to the standardization of the process of attribute and attribute level development for DCEs with policy relevance. To do so, we propose and empirically illustrate a framework tool for the development and reporting of attributes and attribute levels, with the systematic engagement of relevant stakeholders.

METHODS

The framework tool was kept general to allow its use as a standard reporting approach on the development process of a DCE, involving relevant stakeholders at each stage. The proposed 3-stage process consists of (1) collection, (2) selection, and (3) refinement of the DCE attributes and attribute levels. The application of the framework tool is illustrated by 2 projects, Health2040 and COCONUTS-both concerning the preferences of the Swiss population for the future organization of healthcare.

RESULTS

By engaging stakeholders, we identified and included attributes and attribute levels that would not have been identified solely through the existing literature. In addition, including multiple stakeholders from different professional backgrounds ensured that the selected attributes and attribute levels were policy relevant, were applicable in practice, and reflected the opinions of multiple actors in healthcare.

CONCLUSION

The proposed framework helps to strengthen the standardization of the reporting on attribute and attribute level development with stakeholder engagement and to guide future research teams designing a DCE with policy implications.

Development of a Patient-Centered Preference Tool for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The approval of novel therapies for patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies have improved survival outcomes but increased the challenge of aligning chemotherapy choices with patient preferences. We previously developed paper versions of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument to quantify the treatment outcome preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies to inform shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop an electronic health care tool (EHT) to guide clinical decision making that uses either a BWS or DCE instrument to capture patient preferences. The primary objective of this study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the perceived usability, cognitive workload (CWL), and performance of electronic prototypes that include the DCE and BWS instrument.

METHODS

This mixed methods study includes iterative co-design methods that will involve healthy volunteers, patient-caregiver pairs, and health care workers to evaluate the perceived usability, CWL, and performance of tasks within distinct prototypes. Think-aloud sessions and semistructured interviews will be conducted to collect qualitative data to develop an affinity diagram for thematic analysis. Validated assessments (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire [PSSUQ] and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration's Task Load Index [NASA-TLX]) will be used to evaluate the usability and CWL required to complete tasks within the prototypes. Performance assessments of the DCE and BWS will include the evaluation of tasks using the Single Easy Questionnaire (SEQ), time to complete using the prototype, and the number of errors. Additional qualitative assessments will be conducted to gather participants' feedback on visualizations used in the Personalized Treatment Preferences Dashboard that provides a representation of user results after completing the choice tasks within the prototype.

RESULTS

Ethical approval was obtained in June 2021 from the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The DCE and BWS instruments were developed and incorporated into the PRIME (Preference Reporting to Improve Management and Experience) prototype in early 2021 and prototypes were completed by June 2021. Heuristic evaluations were conducted in phase 1 and completed by July 2021. Recruitment of healthy volunteers began in August 2021 and concluded in September 2021. In December 2021, our findings from phase 2 were accepted for publication. Phase 3 recruitment began in January 2022 and is expected to conclude in September 2022. The data analysis from phase 3 is expected to be completed by November 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings will help differentiate the usability, CWL, and performance of the DCE and BWS within the prototypes. These findings will contribute to the optimization of the prototypes, leading to the development of an EHT that helps facilitate shared decision making. This evaluation will inform the development of EHTs to be used clinically with patients and health care workers.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/39586.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

BACKGROUND

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance.

RESULT

Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed.

LIMITATIONS

No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

Attribute Selection for a Discrete Choice Experiment Incorporating a Best-Worst Scaling Survey

OBJECTIVES

Although literature exists on using qualitative methods to generate potential attributes for a discrete choice experiment (DCE), there is little on selecting which attributes to include. We present a case study in which a best-worst scaling case 1 (BWS-1) survey was used to guide attribute selection for a DCE. The case study's context was the decision making of professionals around the choice of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems for children with limited natural speech.

METHODS

BWS-1 survey attributes were generated from literature reviews and focus groups. DCE attributes were selected from BWS-1 attributes. The selection criteria were: include mostly important attributes; create coherent descriptions of children and AAC systems; address the project's research aims; have an appropriate respondent burden. Attributes' importance was judged using BWS-1 relative importance scores.

RESULTS

The BWS-1 survey included 19 child and 18 AAC device/system attributes and was administered to N = 93 AAC professionals. Four child and five device/system attributes were selected for the DCE, administered to N = 155 AAC professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case study BWS-1 results were useful in DCE attribute selection. Four recommendations are made for future studies: define selection criteria for DCE attributes a priori; consider the impact participant's perspective will have on BWS-1 and DCE results; clearly define key terminology at the start of the study and refine it as the study progresses to reflect interim findings; BWS will be useful when there is little existing stated preference work on a topic and/or qualitative work is difficult.

Prioritizing the worries of AML patients: Quantifying patient experience using best-worst scaling

CONTEXT

Although patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) experience significant toxicities and poor outcomes, few studies have quantified patients' experience.

METHODS

A community-centered approach was used to develop an AML-specific best-worst scaling (BWS) instrument involving 13 items in four domains (psychological, physical, decision-making, and treatment delivery) to quantify patient worry. A survey of patients and caregivers was conducted using the instrument. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 832 patients and 237 caregivers. Patients were predominantly white (88%), married/partnered (72%), and in remission (95%). The median age was 55 years (range: 19-87). Median time since diagnosis was 8 years (range: 1-40). Patients worried most about "the possibility of dying from AML" (BWS score = 15.5, confidence interval [CI] [14.2-16.7]) and "long-term side effects of treatments" (14.0, CI [12.9-15.2]). Patients found these items more than twice as worrisome as all items within the domains of care delivery and decision-making. Patients were least worried about "communicating openly with doctors" (2.50, CI [1.97-3.04]) and "having access to the best medical care" (3.90, CI [3.28-4.61]). Caregiver reports were highly correlated to patients' (Spearman's ρ = 0.89) though noted significantly more worry about the possibility of dying and spending time in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

This large convenience sample demonstrates that AML patients have two principal worries: dying from their disease and suffering long-term side effects from treatment. To better foster patient-centered care, therapeutic decision-making and drug development should reflect the importance of both potential outcomes. Further work should explore interventions to address these worries.

Patient-Centered Insights on Treatment Decision Making and Living with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Hematologic Cancers

Expectations relating to treatment and survival, and factors influencing treatment decisions are not well understood in adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia. This study analyzed combined findings from a targeted literature review with patient-reported information shared on YouTube to further understand patient perspectives in hematologic cancers and, in particular, acute myeloid leukemia. The targeted literature review included articles concerning patient (aged ≥ 18 years) experiences or perspectives in acute myeloid leukemia or other hematologic cancers. YouTube video selection criteria included patients (aged ≥ 60 years) with self-reported acute myeloid leukemia. In total, 26 articles (13 acute myeloid leukemia-specific and 14 other hematologic cancers, with one relevant to both populations) and 28 videos pertaining to ten unique patients/caregivers were identified. Key concepts reported by patients included the perceived value of survival for achieving personal and/or life milestones, the emotional/psychological distress of their diagnosis, and the uncertainties about life expectancy/prognosis. Effective therapies that could potentially delay progression and extend life were of great importance to patients; however, these were considered in terms of quality-of-life impact and disruption to daily life. Many patients expressed concerns regarding the lack of treatment options, the possibility of side effects, and how their diagnosis and treatment would affect relationships, daily lives, and ability to complete certain tasks. Both data sources yielded valuable and rich information on the patient experience and perceptions of hematologic cancers, in particular for acute myeloid leukemia, and its treatments. Further understanding of these insights could aid discussions between clinicians, patients, and their caregivers regarding treatment decisions, highlight outcomes of importance to patients in clinical studies, and ultimately, inform patient-focused drug development and evaluation.

Acute myeloid leukemia: 2021 update on risk-stratification and management

Management of AML involves choosing between purely palliative care, standard therapy and investigational therapy ("clinical trial"). Even most older patients likely benefit from treatment. Based on randomized trials CPX 351, midostaurin, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, and venetoclax, the latter three when combined with other drugs, should now be considered standard therapy. Knowledge of the likely results with these therapies is essential in deciding whether to recommend them or participate in a clinical trial, possibly including these drugs. Hence here, in the context of established prognostic algorithms, we review results with the recently- approved drugs compared with their predecessors and describe other potential options. We discuss benefit/risk ratios underlying the decision to offer allogeneic transplant and emphasize the importance of measurable residual disease. When first seeing a newly-diagnosed patient physicians must decide whether to offer conventional treatment or investigational therapy, the latter preferably in the context of a clinical trial. As noted below, such trials have led to changes in what today is considered "conventional" therapy compared to even 1-2 years ago. In older patients decision making has often included inquiring whether specific anti-AML therapy should be offered at all, rather than focusing on a purely palliative approach emphasizing transfusion and antibiotic support, with involvement of a palliative care specialist.

Utilising Patient and Public Involvement in Stated Preference Research in Health: Learning from the Existing Literature and a Case Study

Publications reporting discrete choice experiments of healthcare interventions rarely discuss whether patient and public involvement (PPI) activities have been conducted. This paper presents examples from the existing literature and a detailed case study from the National Institute for Health Research-funded PATHWAY programme that comprehensively included PPI activities at multiple stages of preference research. Reflecting on these examples, as well as the wider PPI literature, we describe the different stages at which it is possible to effectively incorporate PPI across preference research, including the design, recruitment and dissemination of projects. Benefits of PPI activities include gaining practical insights from a wider perspective, which can positively impact experiment design as well as survey materials. Further benefits included advice around recruitment and reaching a greater audience with dissemination activities, amongst others. There are challenges associated with PPI activities; examples include time, cost and outlining expectations. Overall, although we acknowledge practical difficulties associated with PPI, this work highlights that it is possible for preference researchers to implement PPI across preference research. Further research systematically comparing methods related to PPI in preference research and their associated impact on the methods and results of studies would strengthen the literature.

Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits

BACKGROUND

The recent expansion of treatment options in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has necessitated a greater understanding of patient preferences for treatment benefits, about which little is known.

METHODS

We sought to quantify and assess heterogeneity of the preferences of AML patients for treatment outcomes. An AML-specific discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed involving multiple stakeholders. Attributes included in the DCE were event-free survival (EFS), complete remission (CR), time in the hospital, short-term side effects, and long-term side effects. Continuously coded conditional, stratified, and latent-class logistic regressions were used to model preferences of 294 patients with AML.

RESULTS

Most patients were white (89.4%) and in remission (95.0%). A 10% improvement in the chance of CR was the most meaningful offered benefit (P < 0.001). Patients were willing to trade up to 22 months of EFS or endure 8.7 months in the hospital or a two-step increase in long-term side effects to gain a 10% increase in chance of CR. Patients diagnosed at 60 years or older (21.6%) more strongly preferred to avoid short-term side effects (P = 0.03). Latent class analysis showed significant differences of preferences across gender and insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national sample of mostly AML survivors, patients preferred treatments that maximized chance at remission; however, significant preference heterogeneity for outcomes was identified. Age and gender may affect patients' preferences.

IMPACT

Survivor preferences for outcomes can inform patient-focused drug development and shared decision-making. Further studies are necessary to investigate the use of DCEs to guide treatment for individual patients.

Using Social Media to Uncover Treatment Experiences and Decisions in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: Patient-Centric Qualitative Data Analysis

Background

Until recently, treatment options were limited for patients with acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (AML and MDS) who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Owing to the condition’s rapid progression, it is difficult to identify what is most important to patients when making treatment decisions. Patients’ needs can be better addressed by gaining a deeper understanding of their perspectives, which is valuable in the decision-making process. The Food and Drug Administration recently encouraged the use of social media as a tool to gain insight on patients’ perspectives regarding symptoms experienced and the impacts of their disease.

Objective

This study aimed to use disease-specific social media posts by patients with AML or MDS who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy and their caregivers to capture factors they feel are most important, and to provide current evidence to inform and characterize these perspectives.

Methods

Posts by patients with AML or MDS and their caregivers were extracted from publicly available discussions on 3 large AML- or MDS–specific sites. These posts were manually reviewed to only include patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. A total of 1443 posts from 220 AML patients/caregivers and 2733 posts from 127 MDS patients/caregivers met the study inclusion criteria. A qualitative data analysis (QDA) of a sample of 85 patients’/caregivers’ posts was conducted to identify themes, and a targeted QDA of posts from 79 users focused on treatment decision discussions. Posts were manually reviewed, and relevant text segments were coded and grouped into categories and overall themes.

Results

Eighty-six percent (73/85) of users in the overall QDA had relevant information about the key objectives. The most commonly discussed treatment experience theme was the humanistic burden of AML or MDS in terms of emotional/physical impact and impact on family (86%, 63/73 of users), followed by treatment decisions (56%, 41/73) and unmet needs (50%, 37/73). In the QDA of treatment decisions, 60 posts from 45 users contained relevant information. Patients commonly reported the desire to reach specific milestones, including birthdays and weddings. They wished for a better quality of life over quantity of life, did not want the risk of suffering from side effects, and expressed a clear preference to be at home rather than in a hospital or care home.

Conclusions

This study was a novel application of disease-specific social media. It highlighted experiences in the current treatment of AML and MDS, including information gaps, patient/caregiver uncertainty, and the importance of understanding patients’/caregivers’ goals and opinions. A clear finding from this research was the importance of reaching certain personal life goals and being at home with family and friends. The analysis showed that patients/caregivers face additional challenges, including humanistic impacts and a lack of information regarding treatment options.

Side effects from acute myeloid leukemia treatment: results from a national survey

Objective: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is experiencing a therapeutic renaissance due to the heightened biomedical understanding of AML and patient-focused drug development (PFDD). Many AML patients now live long-term with the side effects of treatment. This study documents the prevalence and severity of AML treatment-related side effects. Methods: A national cross-sectional survey designed with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society assessed patients' experiences with short-term (nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, hair loss, mouth sores, infection, rash) and long-term (organ dysfunction, chemobrain, fatigue, neuropathy) treatment side effects. Patient and caregiver participants rated side effect severity (none-severe). Results: Survey participants (n = 1182) were mostly female (65%), AML patients (76%), and had undergone chemotherapy (94%). Eighty-seven per cent of participants reported severe short-term effects, and 33% reported severe long-term effects of treatment. Only 11% of respondents did not have any severe effects. Hair loss and fatigue were the most common severe short- and long-term side effects (78%, 33%). There was a moderate correlation between having short- and long-term adverse effects (r = 0.41, p < 0.001). Caregivers were more likely than patients to report severe organ dysfunction, fatigue, and neuropathy (p-values < 0.05). Conclusions: Survivors experience a high burden of side effects from AML treatments highlighting the need for the development of less toxic therapies. Differences in patients' and caregivers' experiences illustrate the importance of sampling from diverse sources to understand the full burden of AML treatment, and the need for less toxic drugs. This study informs patients, patient-advocacy groups, clinicians, and regulators about AML treatment burdens and provides the community with information to inform PFDD.

Review of the patient-centered communication landscape in multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors limiting and facilitating patient-centered communication (PCC) in the United States hematology-oncology setting, with a focus on multiple myeloma (MM), given the limited attention to PCC and rapid pace of change that has taken place in this setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from 2007 to 2017 to identify published articles and congress abstracts related to clinician-patient communication and treatment decision-making in oncology. Search results were evaluated by year of publication and disease area. A thematic assessment was performed to identify factors limiting and promoting PCC for patients with MM and other hematologic malignancies.

RESULTS

Of the 6673 publications initially retrieved, 18 exclusively reported findings in patients with hematologic malignancies and were included in this review. We identified three critical, but modifiable, barriers to PCC in the hematologic malignancy setting, including insufficient information exchange, treatment goal misalignment, and discordant role preferences in treatment decision-making. Factors that enhanced interaction quality included educational programs for clinicians and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MM and other hematologic malignancies experience a distinct set of challenges that may affect PCC.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians have the opportunity to improve patient care by proactively addressing the identified barriers and implementing strategies demonstrated to improve PCC.

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.