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

Exploring Perceptions of Biologic Therapies: A Qualitative Study Among Canadians Living with Severe Asthma

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapies have demonstrated benefits for individuals with severe asthma, including reduced daily symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, data describing patient perspectives on these treatments are limited. This study sought to understand the preferences and priorities of Canadians with severe asthma in the context of novel biologic treatment options.

METHODS

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted among Canadians with severe asthma from July to August 2022. Purposeful sampling included individuals with and without biologic therapy experience. All participants described daily life with severe asthma, experiences and priorities related to asthma treatment and their impressions of biologics. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patterns in the data.

RESULTS

Among 18 individuals included, 10 were currently taking or had prior experience with biologic treatment for asthma. Those who had never been treated with biologics were unfamiliar with them, considering treatment, or believed that they may not be eligible. Four themes were developed to convey the perspectives of participants on biologics: (1) life-changing benefits, but not for all; (2) navigating barriers to being prescribed and remaining adherent to biologic treatments; (3) treatment administration preferences are not only about convenience; (4) concerns about safety and the unknown as a source of treatment hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the clinical benefits of biologics align with patient perceptions of achieving good asthma control. However, treatment gaps persist among individuals who do not experience a meaningful improvement in their asthma symptoms and those who face barriers accessing biologics. People with severe asthma attributed importance to greater availability of at-home treatment options, improved access to financial support to cover treatment costs and support to address safety concerns. This research provides insight into patient-based treatment priorities and preferences for biologics, which may help inform decision-making related to emerging therapies for severe asthma.

Development and validation of the patient-reported outcome scale for chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE

The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring patient's experience and perception of disease are important components of approach to care. However, no tools are available to assess the PROs of chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study aims to develop and verify a PROs scale to evaluate clinical outcomes in CKD patients.

METHODS

The theoretical structure model and original item pool were formed through a literature review, patient interviews and references to relevant scales. The Delphi method, classical test theory methods and item response theory method were used to select items and adjust dimensions to form the final scale. Altogether 360 CKD patients were recruited through convenience sampling. CKD-PROs could be evaluated from four aspects, namely reliability, content validity, construct validity, responsibility, and feasibility.

RESULTS

The CKD-PROs scale covers 4 domains, including the physiological, psychological, social, and therapeutic domain, and 12 dimensions, 54 items. The Cronbach's α is 0.939, the split reliability coefficient is 0.945, and the correlation of the scores each item and domain's coefficients range from 0.413 to 0.669. The results of structure validity, content validity and reactivity showed that the multidimensional measurement of the scale met professional expectations. The recovery rate and effective rate of the scale were over 99%.

CONCLUSION

The CKD-PROs scale has great reliability, validity, reactivity, acceptability and is capable of being used as one of the evaluation tools for the clinical outcomes of CKD patients.

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

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.

Patient Preferences for Cardiac Rehabilitation - A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation(CR), patient preferences for CR remain unclear. Knowing patient preferences may contribute to increasing patient participation and adherence, thus improving patient prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out using electronic databases and manual reference checks from inception until 15th June 2022. Quantitative studies, qualitative studies and mixed methods studies assessing patient preferences for CR were included. Two researchers independently conducted study selectionand data extraction. CR preferences were divided into three categories: CR settings, CR components, and CR contents. A narrative synthesis was applied to integrate the results of the included studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 17 publications were included in this study. Regarding CR settings, most patients preferred the hospital to home, some considered both, and a few were willing to accept the local CR club as an alternative setting to the hospital. For CR components, regardless of age and gender, patients considered exercise training and nutrition counseling to be the most important and smoking cessation to be the least important. In exercise intervention of CR contents, progress discussion and encouragement were rated as most critical, and non-conflicting with other activities was rated as least critical. In psychological intervention of CR contents, most patients were willing to accept psychological intervention, and a few patients wanted to heal the trauma with the passage of time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides important insights into patient preferences for CR, clarifying patient preferences for CR settings, components, and contents, along with possible influencing factors. Patient preferences may change due to the COVID-19 epidemic, and there is still a need to focus on patient preferences for CR and conduct more relevant primary research to validate the findings of this paper in the future.

Preferences of patients with chronic low back pain about nonsurgical treatments: Results of a discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess patients' preferences of nonsurgical treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHOD

We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in Quebec, Canada, in 2018. Seven attributes were included: treatment modality, pain reduction, the onset of treatment efficacy, duration effectiveness, difficulties with daily activities, sleep problems, and knowledge of the patient's body and pain location. Treatment modalities were corticosteroid injections, supervised body-mind physical activities, supervised sports physical activities, physical manipulations, self-management courses, and psychotherapy. Utility levels were estimated using a logit model, a latent class model and a Bayesian hierarchical model.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted on 424 $424$ individuals. According to the Bayesian hierarchical model, the conditional relative importance weights of attributes were as follows: (1) treatment modality (34.79%), (2) pain reduction (18.73%), (3) difficulties with daily activities (11.71%), (4) duration effectiveness (10.06%), (5) sleep problems (10.05%), (6) onset of treatment efficacy (8.60%) and (7) knowledge of the patient's body and pain location (6.06%). According to the latent class model that found six classes of respondents with different behaviours (using Akaike and Bayesian criteria), the treatment modality was the most important attribute for all classes, except for class 4 for which pain reduction was the most important. In addition, classes 2 and 5 refused corticosteroid injections, while psychotherapy was preferred only in class 3.

CONCLUSION

Given the preference heterogeneity found in the analysis, it is important that patient preferences are discussed and considered by the physicians. This will help to improve the patient care pathway in a context of a patient-centred model for a disease with growing prevalence.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A small group of patients was involved in the conception, design and interpretation of data. Participants in the DCE were all CLBP patients.

Patient preferences regarding treatment options for Waldenström's macroglobulinemia: A discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

Treatment options for Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia (WM) have expanded rapidly in the last decades. However, there is no consensus on a preferred treatment. Therefore, patient preferences become increasingly important in making individualized treatment plans. Still, WM patients' priorities and perspectives regarding their treatment options are unknown. We evaluated treatment preferences of WM patients using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

METHODS

A mixed-method approach was utilized for identification and selection of attributes/levels. The DCE questionnaire included five attributes: type of agent (targeted versus chemotherapy); frequency and route of administration; 5-year progression-free survival (PFS); adverse events; and risk of secondary malignancies. An orthogonal design and a mixed logit panel data model were used to construct choice tasks and assess patient preferences, respectively.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty WM patients participated in the project. In total, 214 (65%) complete questionnaires were included for data analysis. The 5-year PFS, followed by risk of secondary malignancies were the most important attributes for making treatment choices. Regarding side effects, patients chose to avoid neuropathy the most compared to nausea/vomiting and extreme fatigue. Patients preferred a fixed-duration treatment with IV/SC administration at the hospital over a continuous daily oral regimen at home.

CONCLUSION

These are the first systematic data obtained on WM patient preferences for treatment. The results may help discussions with individual patients about their treatment choices. Also, these data can help design clinical trials in WM and inform health-care decision-making regarding outcomes that are most relevant to patients.

Understanding the patient experience of chronic kidney disease stages 2-3b: a qualitative interview study with Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL-36) debrief

Background

Qualitative patient interviews and patient-reported outcome instruments are important tools to understand the patient experience of disease. The aim of this study was to use patient interviews to identify concepts relevant and important to patients living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 2–3b, develop a comprehensive conceptual model of the patient experience and debrief the Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item instrument (KDQOL-36) for patients with CKD stages 2–3b.

Methods

Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with patients with CKD stages 2–3b to identify signs/symptoms and impacts most relevant and important to patients (i.e., ‘salient’ concepts) and develop a conceptual model for the disease. Based on the salient concepts identified in the interviews, new items were proposed to supplement the KDQOL-36. Cognitive debriefing was performed to evaluate the KDQOL-36 and the additional items.

Results

A total of 31 patients were interviewed in this study (22 for concept elicitation and 15 for cognitive debriefing). The interviews identified 56 concepts (33 signs/symptoms and 23 impacts), 17 of which had not been identified in a previous literature review. Four signs/symptoms (‘fatigue/lack of energy/tiredness’, ‘sleep problems’, ‘increased urination [including nocturia]’ and ‘swelling in legs/ankles/feet’) and two impacts (‘anxiety/worry’ and ‘general negative emotional/mental impact’) were identified as salient. Of the salient signs/symptoms, three were not covered by the KDQOL-36 (sleep problems, increased urination and swelling in legs/ankles/feet) and were represented during cognitive debriefing interviews through four additional items (trouble falling asleep, trouble staying asleep, increased urination [including nocturia] and swelling in legs/ankles/feet) generated in the style of the KDQOL-36. All patients found the KDQOL-36 plus the four additional items relevant, and the majority found them clear.

Conclusions

By identifying previously unknown concepts and augmenting the understanding of which are most important to patients, a comprehensive conceptual model was developed for patients who have CKD stages 2–3b. This study also demonstrates the suitability of the KDQOL-36 for patients who have CKD stages 2–3b and provides suggestions for how the instrument could be further developed to more comprehensively capture patient experience.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02826-3.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Patient and retina specialists' preferences in neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatment. A discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) leads to severe and permanent visual impairment, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and functional independence. Although treatment with anti- vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) prevents and, in some cases, reverses visual damage, the need for frequent monitoring visits and intravitreal injections represents a significant burden on patients, caregivers and retina specialists.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit preferences for nAMD treatment characteristics from the perspectives of patients and retina specialists.

METHOD

A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants (patients > 50 years with nAMD receiving anti-VEGF drugs for at least 2 years and without previous experience with anti-VEGF and retina specialists working in the Spanish National Healthcare System) were asked to select one of two hypothetical treatments resulting from the combination of five attributes (effects on visual function, effects on retinal fluid, treatment regimen, monitoring frequency, and cost); their levels were identified by reviewing the literature and two focus groups. The relative importance (RI) given to each attribute was estimated using a mixed logit model. The marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated taking cost as the risk attribute.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients (P) [aged 79.0 (SD:7.4) years; 57.3% women; 2.3 (SD:0.7) years with nAMD; 2.1 years (SD:0.1) in treatment] and 66 retina specialists (RS) participated in the study. Participants gave greater RI to improvements in their visual function [60.0% (P); 52.7% (RS)], lower monitoring frequency [20.2% (P); 27.1% (RS)] and reduction in retinal fluid [9.8% (P); 13.0%(RS)]. Patients and retina specialists would agree to an increase in cost by 65.0% and 56.5%, respectively, in exchange for improvements of visual function; and 25.5% and 43.3% on delaying monitoring frequency by one month.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of treatment, in terms of visual function improvements, is the main driver for treatment election for both patients and retina specialists. Treatment monitoring requirements are also considered, mainly from the retina specialist's perspective. These results suggest that the use of more efficacious anti-VEGF agents with a longer duration of action may contribute to aligning treatment characteristics with patients/specialists' preferences. A better alignment would facilitate better disease management, fulfilling the unmet needs of patients and retina specialists.

Development of a preliminary conceptual model of the patient experience of chronic kidney disease: a targeted literature review and analysis

Background

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should capture the experiences of disease and treatment that patients consider most important in order to inform patient-centred care and product development. The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary conceptual model of patient experience in chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a targeted literature review and to characterize existing PRO instruments used in CKD.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases and recent society meetings were searched for publications reporting signs/symptoms and life impacts of CKD. Concepts identified in the literature review were used to develop a preliminary conceptual model of patient experience of CKD, overall, and within patient subpopulations of differing CKD causes, severities and complications. PRO instruments, identified from PRO databases, CKD literature and CKD clinical trials, were assessed for content validity, psychometric strength and coverage of concepts in the literature review.

Results

In total, 100 publications met criteria for analysis; 56 signs/symptoms and 37 life impacts of CKD were identified from these sources. The most frequently mentioned signs/symptoms were pain/discomfort (57% of publications) and tiredness/low energy/lethargy/fatigue (42%); the most commonly reported life impacts were anxiety/depression (49%) and decrements in physical functioning (43%). Signs/symptoms and life impacts varied across the subpopulations and were more frequent at advanced CKD stages. The preliminary conceptual model grouped signs/symptoms into seven domains (pain/discomfort; energy/fatigue; sleep-related; gastrointestinal-related; urinary-related; skin−/hair−/nails-related; and other) and life impacts into six domains (psychological/emotional strain; cognitive impairment; dietary habit disruption; physical function decrements; interference with social relationships; and other). Eleven PRO instruments were considered to be promising for use in CKD; all had limitations.

Conclusions

Although preliminary, the proposed conceptual model highlights key PROs for people with CKD and is intended to spur development of more tailored PRO instruments to assess these concepts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02440-9.

Incorporating patients' preferences in the value assessment of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis: a narrative review

Introduction: Despite the increasing role of patients in the US healthcare system, patients have yet been engaged in the value assessment of their treatments, including disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). The objectives of this review were therefore to summarize existing studies on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS, and to discuss how to incorporate patients' preferences into the value assessment of DMTs.Area covered: We reviewed previous systematic reviews and conducted further search until November 2020 for studies on CEA with QALYs and patients' preferences of DMTs for MS. We identified the outcomes that were assessed or valued in the CEA studies and the DMT attributes that were important to patients with MS.Expert opinion: Our literature review showed that the studies using CEA with QALYs failed to capture some important DMT attributes, e.g., route and frequency of administration, identified in the studies on the patients' preferences. Various approaches were available for incorporating the patients' preferences in the value assessment of DMTs for MS. We supported this incorporation, which subsequently would increase patient access to preferred DMTs.

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.

Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making.

Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo.

Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA.

Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.