Women's Willingness to Accept Perceived Risks for Vasomotor Symptom Relief

Treatment satisfaction, unmet needs, and new treatment expectations for vasomotor symptoms due to menopause: women's and physicians' opinions

OBJECTIVE

To assess treatment satisfaction, unmet treatment needs, and new vasomotor symptom (VMS) treatment expectations among women with moderate to severe VMS and physicians treating women with VMS.

METHODS

This noninterventional, nonrandomized survey included qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys of women and physicians in the US. Participating women had moderate to severe VMS in the past year and received ≥1 hormone therapy (HT), non-HT, or over-the-counter (OTC) treatment for VMS in the past 3 months. Participating physicians were obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) and primary care physicians (PCPs) who treated ≥15 women with VMS in the past 3 months. Two online survey questionnaires were developed using insights from literature, qualitative interviews, and clinical experts. Menopause Symptoms Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (MS-TSQ) measured treatment satisfaction. Results were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 401 women with VMS and 207 physicians treating VMS. Among women, mean total MS-TSQ score ranges were 62.8-67.3 for HT, 59.8-69.7 for non-HT, and 58.0-64.9 for OTC treatments. Among physicians, mean total MS-TSQ scores were considerably higher for HT than for non-HT and OTC treatments (HT: 73.4-75.6; non-HT: 55.6-62.1; OTC: 49.2-54.7). Women reported "lack of effectiveness" (41.2%), and physicians reported "long-term safety concerns" (56.5%) as main features that do not meet their current treatment expectations. The majority of women and physicians would consider trying a new non-HT treatment for VMS (75.8 and 75.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment satisfaction and new treatment expectations were similar but with some differences between women and physicians; the need for additional treatments for VMS was identified.

Getting it right with discrete choice experiments: Are we hot or cold?

Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) are widely employed survey-based methods to assess preferences for healthcare services and products. While they offer an experimental way to represent health-related decisions, the stylized representation of scenarios in DCEs may overlook contextual factors that could influence decision-making. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the predictive validity of preferences elicited through a DCE in decisions likely influenced by a hot-cold empathy gap, and compare it to another commonly used method, a direct-elicitation question. We focused on preferences for pain-relief modalities, especially for an epidural during childbirth - a context where direct-elicitation questions have shown a preference for or intention to have a natural birth (representing the "cold" state), yet individuals often opt for an epidural during labor (representing the "hot" state). Leveraging a unique dataset collected from 248 individuals, we incorporated both the stated preferences collected through a survey administered upon hospital admission for childbirth and the actual pain-relief modality usage data documented in medical records. The DCE allowed for the evaluation of scenarios outside of those expected by respondents to simulate decision-making during childbirth. When we compared the predicted epidural use with the actual epidural use during labor, we observed a choice concordance of 71-60%, depending on the model specification. The concordance rate between the predicted and actual choices increased to 77-76% when accounting for the initial use of other ineffective modalities. In contrast, the direct-elicitation choices, relying solely on respondents' baseline expectations, yielded a lower concordance rate of 58% with actual epidural use. These findings highlight the flexibility of the DCE method in simulating complex decision contexts, including those involving hot-cold empathy gaps. The DCE proves valuable in assessing nuanced preferences, providing a more accurate representation of the decision-making processes in healthcare scenarios.

Entscheidungen auf Basis von Effizienzgrenzen: Berücksichtigung von Patientenpräferenzen

Bei der Bewertung von Gesundheitstechnologien durch Effizienzgrenzen spielen Patientenpräferenzen derzeit eine untergeordnete Rolle. Die Bewertung konzentriert sich vielmehr auf den Nutzen im Sinne klinischer Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit. Werden mehrere Endpunkte bzw. Effizienzgrenzen einer Entscheidung zugrunde gelegt, erscheint eine Gewichtung dieser Informationen sinnvoll. Zu diesem Zweck können Patientenpräferenzen mittels etablierter Analyseverfahren erhoben werden. Innovative Studienformen liefern wertvolle Zusatzinformationen über die Bedeutung von Endpunkten aus Sicht der Betroffenen. Ein solches Verfahren zur Präferenzmessungen ist die Discrete Choice-Analyse.

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.

Assessing patient preferences for treatment options and process of care in inflammatory bowel disease: a critical review of quantitative data

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), consisting of both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic inflammatory conditions of the intestinal tract. As there is no cure for either CD or UC, patients with these conditions face numerous treatment decisions regarding their disease. The aim of this review is to evaluate literature regarding quantitative studies of patient preferences in therapy for IBD with a focus on the emerging technique of stated preference and its application in IBD. Numerous simple survey-based studies have been performed evaluating IBD patients' preferences for medication frequency, mode of delivery, potential adverse events, etc., as well as variations in these preferences. These studies are limited, however, as they are purely descriptive in nature with limited quantitative information on the relative value of treatment alternatives. Time trade-off and standard-gamble studies have also been utilized to quantify patient utility for various treatment options or outcomes. However, these types of studies suffer from inaccurate assumptions regarding patient choice behavior. Stated preference is an emerging robust methodology increasingly utilized in health care that can determine the relative utility for a therapy option as well as its specific attributes (such as efficacy or adverse side effects). Stated preference techniques have begun to be applied in IBD and offer an innovative way of examining the numerous therapy options these patients and their providers face.

The value of quantitative patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessment

Quantitative patient preferences are a method to involve patients in regulatory benefit-risk assessment. Assuming preferences can be elicited, there might be multiple advantages to their use. Legal, methodological and procedural issues do however imply that preferences are currently at most part of the solution on how to best involve patients in regulatory decision making. Progress is recently made on these issues.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gastroprotection, and benefit-risk

Background

Gastroprotective agents (GPA) substantially reduce morbidity and mortality with long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin.

Objective

To evaluate efficacy of NSAIDs, protection against NSAID-induced gastrointestinal harm, and balance of benefit and risk.

Methods

Free text searches of PubMed (December 2012) supplemented with “related citation” and “cited by” facilities on PubMed and Google Scholar for patient requirements, NSAID effectiveness, pain relief benefits, gastroprotective strategies, adherence to gastroprotection prescribing, and serious harm with NSAIDs and GPA.

Results

Patients want 50% reduction in pain intensity and improved fatigue, distress, and quality of life. Meta-analyses of NSAID trials in musculoskeletal conditions had bimodal responses with good pain relief or little. Number needed to treat (NNTs) for good pain relief were 3 to 9. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and high-dose histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H₂RA) provided similar gastroprotection, with no conclusive evidence of greater PPI efficacy compared with high-dose H₂RA. Prescriber adherence to guidance on use of GPA with NSAIDS was 49% in studies published since 2005; patient adherence was less than 100%. PPI use at higher doses over longer periods is associated with increased risk of serious adverse events, including fracture; no such evidence was found for H₂RA. Patients with chronic conditions are more willing to accept risk of harm for successful treatment than their physicians.

Conclusion

Guidance on NSAIDs use should ensure that patients have a good level of pain relief and that gastroprotection is guaranteed for the NSAID delivering good pain relief. Fixed-dose combinations of NSAID plus GPA offer one solution.

Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature

Decisions regarding the development, regulation, sale, and utilization of pharmaceutical and medical interventions require an evaluation of the balance between benefits and risks. Such evaluations are subject to two fundamental challenges-measuring the clinical effectiveness and harms associated with the treatment, and determining the relative importance of these different types of outcomes. In some ways, determining the willingness to accept treatment-related risks in exchange for treatment benefits is the greater challenge because it involves the individual subjective judgments of many decision makers, and these decision makers may draw different conclusions about the optimal balance between benefits and risks. In response to increasing demand for benefit-risk evaluations, researchers have applied a variety of existing welfare-theoretic preference methods for quantifying the tradeoffs decision makers are willing to accept among expected clinical benefits and risks. The methods used to elicit benefit-risk preferences have evolved from different theoretical backgrounds. To provide some structure to the literature that accommodates the range of approaches, we begin by describing a welfare-theoretic conceptual framework underlying the measurement of benefit-risk preferences in pharmaceutical and medical treatment decisions. We then review the major benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods in the empirical literature and provide a brief overview of the studies using each of these methods. The benefit-risk preference methods described in this overview fall into two broad categories: direct-elicitation methods and conjoint analysis. Rating scales (6 studies), threshold techniques (9 studies), and standard gamble (2 studies) are examples of direct elicitation methods. Conjoint analysis studies are categorized by the question format used in the study, including ranking (1 study), graded pairs (1 study), and discrete choice (21 studies). The number of studies reviewed here demonstrates that this body of research already is substantial, and it appears that the number of benefit-risk preference studies in the literature will continue to increase. In addition, benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods have been applied to a variety of healthcare decisions and medical interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, surgical and medical procedures, and diagnostics, as well as resource-allocation decisions such as facility placement. While preference-elicitation approaches may differ across studies, all of the studies described in this review can be used to provide quantitative measures of the tradeoffs patients and other decision makers are willing to make between benefits and risks of medical interventions. Eliciting and quantifying the preferences of decision makers allows for a formal, evidence-based consideration of decision-makers' values that currently is lacking in regulatory decision making. Future research in this area should focus on two primary issues-developing best-practice standards for preference-elicitation studies and developing methods for combining stated preferences and clinical data in a manner that is both understandable and useful to regulatory agencies.

An agent-based simulation model for informed shared decision making in multiple sclerosis

Shared decision making (SDM) is concerned with patient involvement into medical decisions and chronic conditions such as Multiple sclerosis (MS), with only partially effective treatments leading to potential severe side effects, conflicting evidence, and uncertain evidence on outcomes, constitute a typical condition for SDM. As treatment options increase and patients participate more intensively in decisions, the need for evidence-based information (EBI) becomes clear. Natural history (NH) studies of MS represent the basic sources for required EBI and are especially useful to contribute to the practical exercise of prognosis formulation and to enable the evaluation of effectiveness in the context of treatment. Several of these identify early clinical factors predictive of the course of MS but there is no consensus method for determining the long term progression of disability and evolution of individual patients on the basis of observations on the early stages of the disease, which constitutes a major challenge for the practicing neurologist. Aiming at delivering more reliable prognosis estimation, this study combines the distribution of patients reaching specific levels of disability within defined time periods as determined in NH studies, with disability curves and severity scores as a function of time, in terms of percentiles and deciles respectively, derived from longitudinal data analysis studies. A computer agent-based simulation model was implemented as a comprehensive and easy to utilize tool able to predict and monitor progression of disability in MS patients, and to support the neurologist discussing prognosis scenarios with the individual patient for effective SDM.

Eliciting Benefit–Risk Preferences and Probability-Weighted Utility Using Choice-Format Conjoint Analysis

This study applies conjoint analysis to estimate health-related benefit-risk tradeoffs in a non-expected-utility framework. We demonstrate how this method can be used to test for and estimate nonlinear weighting of adverse-event probabilities and we explore the implications of nonlinear weighting on maximum acceptable risk (MAR) measures of risk tolerance. We obtained preference data from 570 Crohn’s disease patients using a web-enabled conjoint survey. Respondents were presented with choice tasks involving treatment options that involve different efficacy benefits and different mortality risks for 3 possible side effects. Using conditional logit maximum likelihood estimation, we estimate preference parameters using 3 models that allow for nonlinear preference weighting of risks—a categorical model, a simple-weighting model, and a rank dependent utility (RDU) model. For the second 2 models we specify and jointly estimate 1- and 2-parameter probability weighting functions. Although the 2-parameter functions are more flexible, estimation of the 1-parameter functions generally performed better. Despite well-known conceptual limitations, the simple-weighting model allows us to estimate weighting function parameters that vary across 3 risk types, and we find some evidence of statistically significant differences across risks. The parameter estimates from RDU model with the single-parameter weighting function provide the most robust estimates of MAR. For an improvement in Crohn’s symptom severity from moderate and mild, we estimate maximum 10-year mortality risk tolerances ranging from 2.6% to 7.1%. Our results provide further the evidence that quantitative benefit-risk analysis used to evaluate medical interventions should account explicitly for the nonlinear probability weighting of preferences.

A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group

OBJECTIVE

Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies.

RESULTS

Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk-benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk-benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on subjective weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk-benefit profile.

Quantifying women's stated benefit-risk trade-off preferences for IBS treatment outcomes

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration, currently, is exploring quantitative benefit-risk methods to support regulatory decision-making. A scientifically valid method for assessing patients' benefit-risk trade-off preferences is needed to compare risks and benefits in a common metric.

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to quantify the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) that women with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are willing to accept in exchange for symptom relief.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A stated-choice survey was used to elicit trade-off preferences among constructed treatment profiles, each defined by symptom severity and treatment-related AEs. Symptom attributes included frequency of abdominal pain and discomfort, frequency of diarrhea, and frequency of urgency. AE attributes included frequency of mild-to-moderate constipation and the risk of four possible serious AEs.

SUBJECTS

A Web-enabled survey was administered to 589 female US residents at least 18 years of age with a self-reported diagnosis of diarrhea-predominant IBS.

MEASURES

Preference weights and MAR were estimated using mixed-logit methods.

RESULTS

SUBJECTS were willing to accept higher risks of serious AEs in return for treatments offering better symptom control. For an improvement from the lowest to the highest of four benefit levels, subjects were willing to tolerate a 2.65% increase in impacted-bowel risk, but only a 1.34% increase in perforated-bowel risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in MARs across AE types is consistent with the relative seriousness of the AEs. Stated-preference methods offer a scientifically valid approach to quantifying benefit-risk trade-off preferences that can be used to inform regulatory decision-making.

Patients' Benefit-Risk Preferences for Chronic Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura Therapies

Background:

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) primarily is a disorder of adults characterized by autoantibody-induced platelet destruction and reduced platelet production, leading to a low peripheral blood platelet count. The long-term management of many patients with chronic ITP is unsatisfactory, largely due to the variable efficacy and risks of severe adverse effects associated with current treatment options.

Objective:

To estimate patients' benefit-risk preferences for treatments for ITP.

Methods:

Patients' adverse event risk tolerance and the levels of benefit required to offset possible risks were evaluated using choice-format conjoint analysis. Subjects chose between pairs of hypothetical treatment alternatives defined by probability of achieving safe platelet levels, need for corticosteroids, mode of administration, risk of rebound, risk of elevated liver enzyme levels, and risk of thromboembolism.

Results:

In this study, we demonstrate that patients have clear and measurable benefit-risk preferences that physicians should consider when discussing treatment options with their patients. Patients were willing to accept significant risks of adverse events in return for an increase in the probability of achieving safe platelet levels, to avoid corticosteroids, and for more convenient administration. Patients were willing to accept significant risks of rebound and elevated liver enzymes for improvements in outcomes.

Conclusions:

These results demonstrate that patients with ITP are willing to accept treatment-related risks in exchange for improvements in treatment efficacy and administration attributes and suggest the importance of considering a patient's benefit-risk preferences during discussions of therapeutic options.

Multiple sclerosis patients' benefit-risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to estimate the willingness of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients to accept life-threatening adverse event risks in exchange for improvements in their MS related health outcomes.

METHODS

MS patients completed a survey questionnaire that included a series of choice-format conjoint tradeoff tasks. Patients chose hypothetical treatments from pairs of treatment alternatives with varying levels of clinical efficacy and associated risks.

RESULTS

Among the 651 patients who completed the survey, delay in years to disability progression was the most important factor in treatment preferences. In return for decreases in relapse rates from 4 to 1 and increases in delay in progression from 3 to 5 years, patients were willing to accept a 0.38% annual risk of death or disability from PML, a 0.39% annual risk of death from liver failure or a 0.48% annual risk of death from leukemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical interventions carry risks of adverse outcomes that must be evaluated against their clinical benefits. Most MS patients indicated they are willing to accept risks in exchange for clinical efficacy. Patient preferences for potential benefits and risks can assist in decision-making.

Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naïve African Americans for HIV treatments

While African Americans in the United States are disproportionately affected by HIV, they are less likely to take antiretroviral therapies. Different first-line antiretroviral therapies are associated with short-term and long-term adverse event (AE) risks. We estimated the willingness of antiretroviral-naïve, HIV-positive African Americans to accept risks of acute AEs with known outcomes and long-term AEs with uncertain outcomes in exchange for virologic suppression. We estimated the relative importance of short-term and long-term AE risks. Two hundred thirty-five subjects were recruited through eight clinics in the United States. One hundred fifty-eight subjects met study inclusion criteria. One hundred fifty-three subjects completed a series of choice-format conjoint trade-off tasks. In each task, subjects were asked to choose between two hypothetical treatments with varying levels of virologic failure, risks of hypersensitivity reaction, decreases in bone mineral density (BMD), and renal impairment, and outcome uncertainty associated with the risks of decreased BMD and renal impairment. Attributes were expressed as probabilities of occurrence. We calculated the relative importance of each AE and the level of risk subjects would accept to reduce the risk of virologic failure. Subjects indicated that short-term AEs with relatively certain outcomes are preferred to long-term AEs with uncertain outcomes. Subjects were strongly averse to the risk of decreased BMD that could not be treated successfully or when the outcome was uncertain and to the risk of renal impairment that could not be treated successfully. Subjects were willing to accept increased risks of AEs in exchange for lower risk of virologic failure.

Using conjoint analysis to estimate healthy-year equivalents for acute conditions: an application to vasomotor symptoms

OBJECTIVE

Conventional standard gamble and time trade-off methods may be inappropriate for eliciting preferences for some health states because both require subjects to make trade-offs between a morbid health state and death. Thus, the objective of this study is to demonstrate the use of conjoint analysis to obtain time trade-off estimates of healthy-year equivalents (HYEs) for clinically relevant durations and severities of acute, self-limiting, or nonfatal conditions such as vasomotor symptoms.

METHODS

A self-administered, web-enabled, graded-pairs conjoint-analysis survey was developed to elicit women's preferences for reducing the frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms (daytime hot flushes and night sweats). Observed trade-offs between symptom duration and symptom relief were used to calculate HYEs for different severities and durations of vasomotor symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 523 women with a mean age of 52 years completed the survey. For these women, an improvement from severe to moderate vasomotor symptoms yields a gain of 4.44 HYEs, and an improvement from moderate to mild vasomotor symptoms over 1 year yields a gain of 4.62 HYEs over a period of 7 years. HYE gains for symptom relief are larger for younger women than for older women.

CONCLUSIONS

Conjoint analysis is a feasible method for estimating HYEs for acute, self-limiting, or nonfatal conditions. This approach may provide an alternative utility-elicitation method when conventional standard gamble and time trade-off methods are inappropriate to the decision context.