Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review

Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia in the United Kingdom: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Acute leukemia is a cancer of the white blood cells which progresses rapidly and aggressively. There are two types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The latter has a rare subtype: acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). For some patients, following first-line treatment, remission is not achieved ("refractory disease"), and for others the leukemia returns after achieving remission ("relapse"). For these individuals, outcomes are typically poor. It is, therefore, important to understand patients' treatment priorities in this context.

Methods

Building upon formative qualitative research, an online survey containing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to explore patients' treatment preferences in the relapsed/refractory setting. The DCE attributes were mode of administration; quality of life during treatment; chance of response; duration of response; and quality of life during response. Each respondent completed twelve scenarios containing two hypothetical treatments. Participants were eligible if they lived in the United Kingdom and had a diagnosis of acute leukemia. The data were analysed using a latent class model.

Results

A total of 95 patients completed the survey. The latent class analysis identified two classes. For both, chance of response was the most important attribute. For class 1, every attribute was important, whereas for class 2, the only important attributes were quality of life (during treatment and response) and chance of response. A greater proportion of respondents would fall into class 1 overall, and those with ALL or APL and those more recently diagnosed were more likely to be in class 2.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that patients are strongly concerned about the chance of response, as well as quality of life (to a lesser extent), when faced with different treatment options in the relapsed/refractory setting. However, there is significant preference heterogeneity within the patient population, and other treatment characteristics also matter to many.

Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies

This research sought to assess whether and how patient preference (PP) data are currently used within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and affiliated organizations involved in technology/drug appraisals and assessments. An exploratory survey was developed by the PP Project Subcommittee of the HTA International Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group to gain insight into the use, impact, and role of PP data in HTA, as well as the perceived barriers to its incorporation. Forty members of HTA bodies and affiliated organizations from twelve countries completed the online survey. PP data were reported to be formally considered as part of the HTA evidence review process by 82.5 percent of the respondents, while 39.4 percent reported that most of the appraisals and assessments within their organization in the past year had submitted PP data. The leading reason for why PP data were not submitted in most assessments was time/resource constraints followed by lack of clarity on PP data impact. Participants reported that PP data had a moderate level of influence on the deliberative process and outcome of the decision, but a higher level of influence on the decision's quality. Most (81.8 percent) felt patient advocacy groups should be primarily responsible for generating and submitting this type of evidence. Insights from the survey confirm the use of PP data in HTA but reveal barriers to its broader and more meaningful integration. Encouragingly, participants believe obstacles can be overcome, paving the way for a second phase of research involving in-depth collaborative workshops with HTA representatives.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

METHODS

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

Accommodating misclassification effects on optimizing dynamic treatment regimes with Q-learning

Research on dynamic treatment regimes has enticed extensive interest. Many methods have been proposed in the literature, which, however, are vulnerable to the presence of misclassification in covariates. In particular, although Q-learning has received considerable attention, its applicability to data with misclassified covariates is unclear. In this article, we investigate how ignoring misclassification in binary covariates can impact the determination of optimal decision rules in randomized treatment settings, and demonstrate its deleterious effects on Q-learning through empirical studies. We present two correction methods to address misclassification effects on Q-learning. Numerical studies reveal that misclassification in covariates induces non-negligible estimation bias and that the correction methods successfully ameliorate bias in parameter estimation.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention

OBJECTIVES

Preference information is increasingly being elicited to support decision-making. Although discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used, little is known about how respondents' relative experience of a health issue, and its treatment, might impact the results of preference studies. The aim of this study was to explore how preferences differ between groups of individuals with varying levels of experience of a health issue and its treatment, using a weight loss maintenance (WLM) programme as a case study.

METHODS

An online DCE survey was provided to four groups, each differing in their level of experience with weight loss and WLM programmes. One group was recruited from a randomised controlled trial of a WLM programme (ISRCTN14657176) and the other three from an online panel. Choice data were analysed using mixed logit models. Relative attribute importance scores and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were estimated to enable comparisons between groups.

RESULTS

Preferences differed between the groups across different attributes. The largest differences related to the outcome (weight re-gain) and cost attributes, resulting in WTP estimates that were statistically significantly different. The most experienced group was willing to pay £0.35 (95% CI: £0.28, £0.42) to avoid a percentage point increase in weight re-gain, compared with £0.12 (95% CI: £0.08, £0.16) for the least experienced group.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence in a public health setting to suggest that preferences differ based on respondent experience of the health issue and its treatment. Health preference researchers should therefore carefully consider the appropriate composition of their study samples.

Suitability of Preference Methods Across the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the importance of criteria describing methods (eg, duration, costs, validity, and outcomes) according to decision makers for each decision point in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of a discrete choice experiment, swing weighting, probabilistic threshold technique, and best-worst scale cases 1 and 2 at each decision point in the MPLC.

METHODS

Applying multicriteria decision analysis, an online survey was sent to MPLC decision makers (ie, industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment representatives). They ranked and weighted 19 methods criteria from an existing performance matrix about their respective decisions across the MPLC. All criteria were given a relative weight based on the ranking and rating in the survey after which an overall suitability score was calculated for each preference elicitation method per decision point. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to reflect uncertainty in the performance matrix.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 health technology assessment representatives completed the surveys. Overall, "estimating trade-offs between treatment characteristics" and "estimating weights for treatment characteristics" were highly important criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, whereas other criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Swing weighting and probabilistic threshold technique received significantly higher suitability scores across decision points than other methods. Sensitivity analyses showed substantial impact of uncertainty in the performance matrix.

CONCLUSION

Although discrete choice experiment is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of decision makers. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use.

Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

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.

The Impact of Video-Based Educational Materials with Voiceovers on Preferences for Glucose Monitoring Technology in Patients with Diabetes: A Randomised Study

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring patients have enough information about healthcare choices prior to completing a preference study is necessary to support the validity of the findings. Patients are commonly informed using text-based information with supporting graphics. Video-based information may be more engaging for the general patient population. This study aimed to assess (1) the impact that educating patients using video-based educational materials with a voiceover has on patient preferences compared to traditional text, and (2) whether this impact is consistent between two countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A video-based educational tool was developed to inform patients prior to completing a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for glucose monitors. Patients with diabetes from the Netherlands and Poland were recruited through an online research panel. Respondents were randomised to receive information in either a text or a video with animations and a voiceover. Data were analysed using a mixed-logit model.

RESULTS

N = 981 completed surveys were analysed from the Netherlands (n = 459) and Poland (n = 522). Differences were found between the countries, but no interpretable pattern of differences was found between the two types of educational materials. Patients spent less time in the educational material than would be necessary to fully review all of the content.

CONCLUSIONS

Simply providing educational material in a video with animations and voiceovers does not necessarily lead to better engagement from respondents or different preference outcomes in a sample of diabetes patients when compared to text. Increasing engagement with educational materials should be a topic of future research for those conducting patient preference research as no amount of educational material will be helpful if respondents do not access it.

Using Patient Perspectives to Inform Better Clinical Trial Design and Conduct: Current Trends and Future Directions

The approach to patient engagement (PE) in drug development has changed rapidly due to many factors, including the complexity of innovative drugs and the need to demonstrate outcomes of relevance to patients, the desire to show 'value add' of PE, and the pandemic-related changes to how clinical trials are run, e.g., decentralised studies. In parallel, there have been changes in technology-assisted ways of running clinical trials, capturing patient health outcomes and preferences, an increasing societal demand for diversity and inclusion, and efforts to improve clinical trial efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Organisations are beginning to monitor PE activities and outcomes more effectively to learn and inform future PE strategies. As a result, these factors are facilitating the incorporation of patients' lived experience, preferences and needs into the design and running of clinical trials more than ever before. In this paper, the authors reflect upon these last few years, the emerging trends and their drivers, and where we may expect PE in clinical research to progress in the near future.

Leveraging Patient Preference Information in Medical Device Clinical Trial Design

Use of robust, quantitative tools to measure patient perspectives within product development and regulatory review processes offers the opportunity for medical device researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders to evaluate what matters most to patients and support the development of products that can best meet patient needs. The medical device innovation consortium (MDIC) undertook a series of projects, including multiple case studies and expert consultations, to identify approaches for utilizing patient preference information (PPI) to inform clinical trial design in the US regulatory context. Based on these activities, this paper offers a cogent review of considerations and opportunities for researchers seeking to leverage PPI within their clinical trial development programs and highlights future directions to enhance this field. This paper also discusses various approaches for maximizing stakeholder engagement in the process of incorporating PPI into the study design, including identifying novel endpoints and statistical considerations, crosswalking between attributes and endpoints, and applying findings to the population under study. These strategies can help researchers ensure that clinical trials are designed to generate evidence that is useful to decision makers and captures what matters most to patients.

What matters most to patients with multiple myeloma? A Pan-European patient preference study

INTRODUCTION

Given the rapid increase in novel treatments for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), this patient preference study aimed to establish which treatment attributes matter most to MM patients and evaluate discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing weighting (SW) as two elicitation methods for quantifying patients' preferences.

METHODS

A survey incorporating DCE and SW was disseminated among European MM patients. The survey included attributes and levels informed by a previous qualitative study with 24 MM patients. Latent class and mixed logit models were used to estimate the DCE attribute weights and descriptive analyses were performed to derive SW weights. MM patients and patient organisations provided extensive feedback during survey development.

RESULTS

393 MM patients across 21 countries completed the survey (M years since diagnosis=6; M previous therapies=3). Significant differences (p<.01) between participants' attribute weights were revealed depending on participants' prior therapy experience, and their experience with side-effects and symptoms. Multivariate analyses showed that participants across the three MM patient classes identified via the latent class model differed regarding their past number of therapies (F=4.772, p=.009). Patients with the most treatments (class 1) and those with the least treatments (class 3) attached more value to life expectancy versus quality of life-related attributes such as pain, mobility and thinking problems. Conversely, patients with intermediary treatment experience (class 2) attached more value to quality of life-related attributes versus life expectancy. Participants highlighted the difficulty of trading-off between life expectancy and quality of life and between physical and mental health. Participants expressed a need for greater psychological support to cope with their symptoms, treatment side-effects, and uncertainties. With respect to patients' preferences for the DCE or SW questions, 42% had no preference, 32% preferred DCE, and 25% preferred SW.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of life-related attributes affecting MM patients' physical, mental and psychological health such as pain, mobility and thinking problems were considered very important to MM patients, next to life expectancy. This underscores a need to include such attributes in decision-making by healthcare stakeholders involved in MM drug development, evidence generation, evaluation, and clinical practice. This study highlights DCE as the preferred methodology for understanding relative attribute weights from a patient's perspective.

What are the unmet needs and most relevant treatment outcomes according to patients with inflammatory bowel disease? A qualitative patient preference study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As more therapeutic options with their own characteristics become available for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), drug development and individual treatment decision-making needs to be tailored towards patients' preferences and needs. This study aimed to understand patient preferences among IBD patients, and their most important treatment outcomes and unmet needs.

METHODS

This qualitative study consisted of 1) a scoping literature review, 2) two focus group discussions (FGDs) with IBD patients (n=11) using the nominal group technique, and 3) two expert panel discussions.

RESULTS

IBD patients discussed a multitude of unmet needs regarding their symptoms, side-effects, psychological and social issues for which they would welcome improved outcomes. Particularly, IBD patients elaborated on the uncertainties and fears they experienced regarding the possible need for surgery or an ostomy, the effectiveness and onset of action of their medication, and its long-term effects. Furthermore, participants extensively discussed the mental impact of IBD and their need for more psychological guidance, support, and improved information and communication with healthcare workers regarding their disease and emotional well-being. The following five characteristics were identified during the attribute grading as most important: prevent surgery, long-term clinical remission, improved quality of life (QoL), occurrence of urgency, and improved labor rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that IBD drug development and treatment decision-making needs to improve IBD symptoms and adverse events that significantly impact IBD patients' QoL. Furthermore, this study underscores patients need for a shared decision-making process where their desired treatment outcomes and uncertainties are explicitly discussed and considered.

How to calculate the life cycle of high-risk medical devices for patient safety

In this study, we analyzed Korean and foreign systems, focusing on high-risk medical devices that urgently need to be managed, and we present an life cycle calculation method for determining replacement time. A literature review was conducted to confirm the regulations of the medical device management system and life cycle by country, and a case analysis was performed to verify the replacement evaluation criteria of actual medical institutions. In addition, durability data from the Public Procurement Service, American Hospital Association, and Samsung Medical Center were used to calculate the life cycle of high-risk medical devices. The analysis showed that in the case of Korean and foreign medical device regulatory agencies, there were no specific life cycle regulations for high-risk medical devices. In addition, the important items in the medical device replacement evaluation were found to be the year of introduction, repair cost, component discontinuation, and several failures. On calculating the life cycle of high-risk medical devices revealed that the replacement time is 13 years for anesthesia machines, 14 years for defibrillators, 16 years for heart-lung machines, and 13 years for ventilators. To introduce a uniform medical device replacement standard and life cycle calculation method, the government will need to reorganize the medical device replacement laws and systems. In addition, in the case of medical institutions, it is necessary to secure patient safety by using expert groups to prepare specific life cycle standards that consider the characteristics of medical devices.

A Composite Endpoint for Treatment Benefit According to Patient Preference

Complex disorders usually affect multiple symptom domains measured by several outcomes. The importance of these outcomes is often different among patients. Current approaches integrate multiple outcomes without considering patient preferences at the individual level. In this paper, we propose a new composite Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) that integrates individual level ranking of outcome importance and define a winning probability measuring the overall treatment effect. Stratified randomization can be performed based on the participants' baseline outcome rankings. A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U-statistic is used to average the pairwise DOOR between one treated and one control patient, considering the difference in these patients' ranking of outcome importance. We use both theoretical and empirical methods to examine the statistical properties of our method and to compare with conventional approaches. We conclude that the proposed composite DOOR properly reflects patient-level preferences and can be used in pivotal trials or comparative effectiveness trials for a patient-centered evaluation of overall treatment benefits.

How Can We Optimize the Value Assessment and Appraisal of Orphan Drugs for Reimbursement Purposes? A Qualitative Interview Study Across European Countries

Introduction: The expansion of orphan drug treatment at increasing prices, together with uncertainties regarding their (cost-)effectiveness raises difficulties for decision-makers to assess these drugs for reimbursement. The present qualitative study aims to gain better insight into current value assessment and appraisal frameworks for orphan drugs, and provides guidance for improvement.

Methods: 22 European experts from 19 different countries were included in a qualitative survey, followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews. These experts were academics, members of reimbursement agencies or health authorities, or members of regulatory or health/social insurance institutions. Adopting a Grounded Theory approach, transcripts were analysed according to the QUAGOL method, supported by the qualitative data analysis software Nvivo.

Results: Although participants indicated several good practices (e.g., the involvement of patients and the presence of structure and consistency), several barriers (e.g., the lack of transparency) lead to questions regarding the efficiency of the overall reimbursement process. In addition, the study identified a number of “contextual” determinants (e.g., bias, perverse effects of the orphan drug legislation, and an inadequate consideration of the opportunity cost), which may undermine the legitimacy of orphan drug reimbursement decisions.

Conclusion: The present study provides guidance for decision-makers to improve the efficiency of orphan drug reimbursement. In particular, decision-makers can generate quick wins by limiting the impact of contextual determinants rather than improving the methods included in the HTA. When implemented into a framework that promotes “Accountability for Reasonableness” (A4R), this allows decision-makers to improve the legitimacy of reimbursement decisions concerning future orphan drugs.

Preference Testing in Medical Devices: Current Framework and Regulatory Gaps

Preference testing is a valuable source of information that can be provided by both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients (users). It can be used to improve the design and development of medical devices by feeding into device usability and, ultimately, risk management. Furthermore, it can aid with selecting the most appropriate clinical endpoints to be used in the clinical evaluation of a device and increase patient engagement by incorporating patient-relevant outcomes. Preference testing is widely conducted in the food industry but is not widespread in the medical field due to limited guidelines and a lack of regulatory framework. As such, manufacturers may be unaware of the benefits of preference testing and fail to take full advantage of it, or conversely, may use inappropriate methodology and/or analyses and consequently fail to collect meaningful data. In this position paper, we aim to highlight the benefits and uses of preference testing, along with potential methods that could be used for preference testing of medical devices. A key step towards the wider implementation of preference testing in medical devices is for the publication of international standards and guidelines for the collection, assessment, and implementation of preference data into the life cycle of a medical device.

Global Landscape of Benefit-Risk Considerations for Medicinal Products: Current State and Future Directions

In the last decade there has been a significant increase in the literature discussing the use of benefit-risk methods in medical product (including devices) development. Government agencies, medical product industry groups, academia, and collaborative consortia have extensively discussed the advantages of structured benefit-risk assessments. However, the abundance of information has not resulted in a consistent way to utilize these findings in medical product development. Guidelines and papers on methods, even though well structured, have not led to a firm consensus on a clear and consistent approach. This paper summarizes the global landscape of benefit-risk considerations for product- or program-level decisions from available literature and regulatory guidance, providing the perspectives of three stakeholder groups-regulators, collaborative groups and consortia, and patients. The paper identifies key themes, potential impact on benefit-risk assessments, and significant future trends.

Patient Preferences for Rituximab Additional Risk Minimization Measures: Results From an International Online Survey

OBJECTIVE

Patients' opinions are essential in optimizing risk minimization measures (RMMs) because they bring their real-life experience of disease management and medicines' use into the regulatory assessments. The aim of the survey launched in 2018 by the European Medicines Agency, in collaboration with the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, was to consult targeted patient groups treated with rituximab for nononcology indications to evaluate their preferences on how to receive information on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy and (serious) infections. Additional RMMs such as educational materials for physicians and patients including a patient alert card (PAC) and a patient brochure (PB) are in place to minimize these risks.

METHODS

A question-based online survey in English created on the EU-Survey platform and disseminated primarily via relevant European patient organizations.

RESULTS

Most patients (47 of 61) had knowledge of these potential adverse effects. Mostly, they were informed by a healthcare professional. Both a PAC and a PB were supported as useful tools to raise awareness of these adverse effects and thus minimize the potential risks among patients. Where the participants had to choose only 1 of these educational materials, 43 of them preferred a PAC, a shorted description that is always held by the patient and reaches the relevant healthcare professional when needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Collecting patients' preferences supports periodic assessment of additional RMMs and increase transparency of regulatory processes. Considering the limitations of this initial survey, further investigation is needed to generalize the results into patients' safety outcomes.

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.

Composite endpoint for ALS clinical trials based on patient preference: Patient-Ranked Order of Function (PROOF)

BACKGROUND

Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) show considerable variation in symptoms. Treatments targeting an overall improvement in symptomatology may not address what the majority of patients consider to be most important. Here, we propose a composite endpoint for ALS clinical trials that weighs the improvement in symptoms compared with what the patient population actually wants.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent out to a population-based registry in The Netherlands. Patients with ALS were asked to score functional domains with a validated self-reported questionnaire, and rank the order of importance of each domain. This information was used to estimate variability in patient preferences and to develop the Patient-Ranked Order of Function (PROOF) endpoint.

RESULTS

There was extensive variability in patient preferences among the 433 responders. The majority of the patients (62.1%) preferred to prioritise certain symptoms over others when evaluating treatments. The PROOF endpoint was established by comparing each patient in the treatment arm to each patient in the placebo arm, based on their preferred order of functional domains. PROOF averages all pairwise comparisons, and reflects the probability that a patient receiving treatment has a better outcome on domains that are most important to them, compared with a patient receiving placebo. By means of simulation we illustrate how incorporating patient preference may upgrade or downgrade trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROOF endpoint provides a balanced patient-focused analysis of the improvement in function and may help to refine the risk-benefit assessment of new treatments for ALS.

Evaluating the Consistency of Patient Preference Estimates: Systematic Variation in Survival-Adverse Event Trade-Offs in Patients with Cancer or Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

The increased use of patient preference data in healthcare decision making has raised concerns about the reliability and consistency of the estimates generated by patient preference studies. However, literature reviews to assess the consistency of preferences are confounded by heterogeneity in study designs.

METHODS

This paper adopted a novel approach to evaluating preference consistency: comparing estimates of a single trade-off-the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) between survival improvements and risks of adverse events-across multiple patient groups and using meta-regression to assess whether MRS varied systematically between patients. A log-linear, random effects regression was run, weighted for the sample sizes of studies from which estimates were extracted.

RESULTS

Using studies identified in published reviews of patient preference data, 42 estimates of MRS were generated from the 12 studies. On average, patients obtained the same utility from a 2.3% reduction in the risk of an adverse event as from a 1-month increase in survival, with a range of 0.002-13.5%. The regression model had an R² of over 90% and suggests that MRS depended on patients' expected survival and the type of adverse event being traded.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that although preferences vary between patients, they may do so in systematic and predictable ways. Further, they do so in ways consistent with societal preferences and decision maker priorities toward end-of-life settings. Further work is required to replicate this result in other patient groups and to explore the consistency of preferences for other treatment attributes.

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

Key Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study in Belgium and Italy

Background: The lung cancer (LC) treatment landscape has drastically expanded with the arrival of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This new variety of treatment options, each with its own characteristics, raises uncertainty regarding the key aspects affecting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). The present qualitative study aimed to investigate how LC patients perceive their HRQL and the factors that they consider to be most influential in determining their HRQL. Methods: This qualitative research incorporates four focus group discussions, with six LC patients in each group. In total, 24 stage III and IV LC patients were included in the discussions, with Italian (n = 12) and Belgian (n = 12) patients, age range: 42-78, median age = 62 (IQR = 9.3 years), SD = 8.5; 62% men. Using thematic analysis, transcripts and notes from the FGDs were analyzed using NVivo software (edition 12). Results: Three main themes capturing determinants of HRQL were identified. First, patients agreed on the importance of physical aspects (symptoms and side-effects) in determining their HRQL. In particular, skin conditions, nausea, fatigue, risk of infections, sensory abnormalities, pain, and changes in physical appearance were highlighted. Second, patients worried about psychological aspects, negatively impacting their wellbeing such as uncertainties regarding their future health state, and a lower degree of autonomy and independence. Third, patients underlined the importance of social aspects, such as communication with healthcare providers and social interaction with friends, family and peers. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that physical, psychological, and social aspects are key factors driving LC patients' HRQL. Gaining a better understanding of how LC patients perceive their HRQL and how it is affected by their illness and therapy will aid patient-centric decision-making across the drug life cycle, by providing stakeholders (drug developers, regulators, reimbursement bodies, and clinicians) insights about the treatment and disease aspects of importance to LC patients as well as the unmet needs LC patients may have regarding available treatment modalities. Finally, this study underscores a need for individual treatment decision-making that is considerate of uncertainties among LC patients about their future health state, and ways for improving communication between healthcare providers and patients to do so.

Sustaining Meaningful Patient Engagement Across the Lifecycle of Medicines: A Roadmap for Action

BACKGROUND

There is increased recognition that incorporating patients' perspectives and insights into the medicines development process results in better health outcomes and benefits for all involved stakeholders. Despite the increased interest and the existence of frameworks and practical recommendations, patient engagement (PE) is not yet considered standard practice. The objective of this work was to provide a roadmap to support systematic change in all stakeholder organisations involved in medicines development across Europe, patients and patient organisations, medicines developers, academia, regulatory authorities, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, policy-makers and public research funders, to sustain PE practices.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used by the EU-funded Innovative Medicines Initiative PARADIGM Consortium to co-develop the sustainability roadmap including background work to identify success factors and scenarios for sustainable PE. The roadmap development was based on the Theory of Change concept and populated with findings from (1) interviews with national/ and international institutions with the potential to increase PE uptake by other stakeholders; (2) multi-stakeholder workshops and webinars; and (3) consultations with specific stakeholder groups, Consortium members and a consultative body formed by international PE initiatives.

RESULTS

This roadmap sets strategic goals for the PE community to achieve meaningful and systematic PE through changes in the culture, processes and resources of stakeholder organisations. It brings in key PARADIGM outputs to work in a coordinated fashion with existing frameworks and mechanisms to achieve system-wide sustained PE.

CONCLUSIONS

The roadmap provides a framework for all stakeholders to take collective action within their organisations and across Europe to implement PE in a sustainable manner.

DRAVET ENGAGE. Parent caregivers of children with Dravet syndrome: Perspectives, needs, and opportunities for clinical research

Dravet syndrome (DS) is an intractable developmental and epileptic encephalopathy significantly impacting affected children and their families. A novel, one-time, adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated gene regulation therapy was designed to treat the underlying cause of DS, potentially improving the full spectrum of DS manifestations. To ensure the first-in-human clinical trial addresses meaningful outcomes for patients and families, we examined their perspectives, priorities, goals, and desired outcomes in the design phase through a mixed methods approach (quantitative and qualitative). We conducted a non-identifiable parent caregiver survey, shared through a patient advocacy organization (n = 36 parents; children age ≤6 years). Parents were also engaged via three group discussions (n = 10; children age 2-20 years) and optional follow-up in-depth individual interviews (n = 6). Qualitative data analysis followed an inductive interpretive process, and qualitative researchers conducted a thematic analysis with a narrative approach. Survey results revealed most children (94%) were diagnosed by age 1, with onset of seizures at mean age 6.2 months and other DS manifestations before 2 years. The most desired disease aspects to address with potential new disease-modifying therapies were severe seizures (ranked by 92% of caregivers) and communication issues (development, expressive, receptive; 72-83%). Qualitative results showed the need for trial outcomes that recognize the impact of DS on the whole family. Parents eventually hope for trials including children of all ages and were both excited about the potential positive impact of a one-time disease-modifying therapy and mindful of potential long-term implications. Participants reflected on the details and risks of a clinical trial design (e.g., sham procedures) and described the different factors that relate to their decision to participate in a trial. Their main aspirations were to stop neurodevelopmental stagnation, to reduce seizures, and to reduce the impact on their families' wellbeing. To our knowledge, this is the first study within a patient-oriented research framework that specifically explored parents' needs and perceptions regarding clinical trials of a potential disease-modifying therapy for children with a severe, developmental disease, such as DS.

Patient Preferences for Multiple Myeloma Treatments: A Multinational Qualitative Study

Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.

Proposal for capturing patient experience through extended value frameworks of health technologies

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of patient experience (PEx) in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important; however, no harmonized approach exists to help manufacturers or decision makers ensure PEx considerations are fair, consistent, and thorough within global HTA frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a proposal for including PEx in the HTA frameworks of health technologies. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) on existing value frameworks (VFs) was conducted to capture how PEx-related value judgment is currently considered. Guided by the results of the SLR, a research group including HTA experts and patient representatives used an iterative process to develop potential value domains to capture PEx, in accordance with international guidelines. Subsequently, a panel of international payer experts was used to challenge the proposed PEx domains and provide recommendations for implementation. RESULTS: The SLR found 61 VFs and multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) that considered PEx; however, PEx-related value elements were often referred to superficially, without clear definitions. Five potential PEx domains, with proposed measures for each, were developed and refined using expert feedback: (1) responsiveness to patient's individual needs, (2) improved health literacy and empowerment, (3) patient and caregiver reported outcomes, (4) household's financial burden, and (5) improved access for vulnerable patient populations. A flexible approach for framework implementation was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed PEx domains could be implemented at multiple levels of healthcare decision making to formalize consideration of PEx in the assessment of value, either through the extension of existing VFs or to create new PEx-focused VFs and more holistic decision making tools. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded and sponsored by UCB Pharma. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Charokopou, Mountain, and Szegvari are employed by UCB Pharma. Inotai, Jakab, and Kalo are employed by Syreon Research Institute, which received funding from UCB Pharma for this research. Brixner has received fees from AbbVie, Elevar, Millcreek Outcomes Group, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Xcenda. Campbell has received grants and contracts from the PhRMA Foundation and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. During a sabbatical leave, Campbell collaborated with Syreon Research Institute on research projects that included funding from UCB Pharma. Hawkins has received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. Kristensen has received speakers bureau fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and consultancy fees from UCB Pharma.

Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives

OBJECTIVE

Patient preferences can be informative for health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making. However, applications may be different per country. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate HTA representatives' opinions on whether and how to incorporate patient preferences in HTA in their respective countries.

METHODS

Three country-specific focus groups were conducted with three to seven HTA representatives from Germany, Belgium, and Canada. A predefined focus group guide was used that covered topics relating to how patient preferences can be used in HTA, namely HTA stage, weight, impact, and quality, as well as a case example of gene therapy. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 following thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across all HTA bodies, an interest in the use of patient preferences was observed for scientific advice and value assessments, but not through incorporation in quality-adjusted life-years and multi-criteria decision analysis. HTA representatives found it difficult to determine the weight patient preferences may receive in decision making, but thought it could have an impact on payer decision making if the study is of acceptable quality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the near future it may be impossible to achieve structural integration of patient preferences with other evidence in HTA (e.g., in cost-effectiveness analysis), but HTA bodies are willing to incorporate patient preferences in other HTA sections as supportive evidence. To allow for that use, future work should focus on meeting HTA and payer needs when conducting patient preference studies and on education of HTA and payer representatives regarding these studies.

Reporting Quality of Marginal Rates of Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments That Elicit Patient Preferences

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences as marginal rates of substitution (MRSs) between treatment or health service attributes. Because these studies are increasing in importance, it is vital that uncertainty around MRS estimates is reported.

OBJECTIVE

To review recently published DCE studies that elicit patient preferences in relation to MRS reporting and to explore the accuracy of using other reported information to estimate the uncertainty of the MRSs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of DCEs conducted with patients between 2014 and July 2019 was performed. The number of studies reporting coefficients, MRSs, standard errors (SEs), and confidence intervals was recorded. If all information was reported, studies were included in an analysis to determine the impact of estimating the SEs of MRSs using coefficients and assuming zero covariance, to determine the impact of this assumption.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-two patient DCEs were identified in the review; 34.1% (n = 79) reported 1 or more MRS and, of these, only 62.0% (n = 49) provided an estimate of the uncertainty. Of these studies, 16 contained enough information for inclusion in the analysis, providing 116 datapoints. Actual SEs were smaller than estimated SEs in 75.0% of cases (n = 87), and estimated SEs were within 25% of the actual SE in 59.5% of cases (n = 69).

CONCLUSION

Uncertainty of MRS estimates is unreported in a substantial proportion of recently published DCE studies. Estimating the SE of a MRS by solely using the SEs of the utility coefficients is likely to lead to biased estimates of the precision of patient trade-offs.

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.