Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison

Effects of different treatments for obstructive sleep apnea on temporomandibular joint: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In recent years, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has been increasingly recognized as a significant health concern. No previous studies assessed the effect of recommended treatment modalities of patients with OSA on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The current study aimed to evaluate the effect of different treatment modalities of OSA, such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), mandibular advancement device (MAD), and oral myofunctional therapy (OMT) on subjective symptoms, clinical, and radiographic signs of temporomandibular disorders.

PATIENTS & METHODS

This hospital-based prospective randomized controlled clinical trial study was approved by the institutional review board and formal patient consent, 39 OSA patients, ranging in age from 19 to 56 after confirmation with full night Polysomnography (PSG) with healthy TMJ confirmed clinically and radiographically with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were randomly allocated into three treatment groups. Group 1: 13 patients were managed with CPAP after titration, group 2: 13 patients were managed with digitally fabricated MAD, and group 3: 13 patients were managed with OMT. The following parameters were evaluated before and 3 months after the intervention. Pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS), maximum inter-incisal opening (MIO), lateral movements, and clicking sound of TMJ. MRI was done before and 3 months after the intervention.

RESULTS

Out of the 83 patients enrolled, 39 patients completed the treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in lateral jaw movements or clicking, and no significant difference in MRI findings between the three studied groups before and after the intervention. The OMT group showed a statistically significant difference in pain (p = 0.001), and MIO (p = 0.043) where patients experienced mild pain and slight limitation in mouth opening after 3 months of follow-up in comparison to MAD and CPAP groups.

CONCLUSION

CPAP and MAD are better for preserving the health of TMJ in the treatment of OSA patients. While OMT showed mild pain and slight limitation of MIO (that is still within the normal range of mouth opening) compared to CPAP and MAD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was listed on www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov with registration number (NCT05510882) on 22/08/2022.

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.

Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research

Choice-based preference elicitation methods such as the discrete choice experiment (DCE) present hypothetical choices to respondents, with an expectation that these hypothetical choices accurately reflect a 'real world' health-related decision context and that consequently the choice data can be held to be a true representation of the respondent's health or treatment preferences. For this to be the case, careful consideration needs to be given to the format of the choice task in a choice experiment. The overarching aim of this paper is to highlight important aspects to consider when designing and 'setting up' the choice tasks to be presented to respondents in a DCE. This includes the importance of considering the potential impact of format (e.g. choice context, choice set presentation and size) as well as choice set content (e.g. labelled and unlabelled choice sets and inclusion of reference alternatives) and choice questions (stated choice versus additional questions designed to explore complete preference orders) on the preference estimates that are elicited from studies. We endeavoure to instil a holistic approach to choice task design that considers format alongside content, experimental design and analysis.

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.

Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare

Participatory value evaluation (PVE) has recently been introduced in the field of health as a new method to elicit stated preferences for public policies. PVE is a method in which respondents in a choice experiment are presented with various policy options and their attributes, and are asked to compose their portfolio of preference given a public-resource constraint. This paper aims to illustrate PVE's potential for informing healthcare decision making and to position it relative to established preference-elicitation methods. We first describe PVE and its theoretical background. Next, by means of a narrative review of the eight existing PVE applications within and outside the health domain, we illustrate the different implementations of the main features of the method. We then compare PVE to several established preference-elicitation methods in terms of the structure and nature of the choice tasks presented to respondents. The portfolio-based choice task in a PVE requires respondents to consider a set of policy alternatives in relation to each other and to make trade-offs subject to one or more constraints, which more closely resembles decision making by policymakers. When using a flexible budget constraint, respondents can trade-off their private income with public expenditures. Relative to other methods, a PVE may be cognitively more demanding and is less efficient; however, it seems a promising complementary method for the preference-based assessment of health policies. Further research into the feasibility and validity of the method is required before researchers and policymakers can fully appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of the PVE as a preference-elicitation method.

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

INTRODUCTION

Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR.

METHODS

A total of 307 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected.

RESULTS

Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P < 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P < 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53-0.55).

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions.

HIGHLIGHTS

Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability.Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer.A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.

Two Methods, One Story? Comparing Results of a Choice Experiment and Multidimensional Thresholding From a Clinician Preference Study in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of methods are used to elicit health preference information. It is unclear whether different elicitation methods produce similar results and policy advice. Here, we compared the results from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and multidimensional thresholding (MDT) that were conducted in the same sample.

METHODS

Clinicians (N = 350) completed a DCE and MDT to elicit their preferences for 4 attributes related to the medical management of subarachnoid hemorrhage after aneurysm repair. Preference weights were compared between the DCE and MDT using a complete combinatorial convolution test. Additionally, data from the DCE and MDT were used to compute preference-based net treatment values for 16 hypothetical treatment profiles versus 1000 simulated comparators. The implied treatment recommendations were compared between the DCE and MDT.

RESULTS

Preference weight distributions and median weights did not differ significantly between the DCE and MDT for any attribute: likelihood of delayed cerebral ischemia (medians 0.48 vs 0.40; P = .41), risk of lung complications (medians 0.27 vs 0.30; P = .52), risk of hypotension (medians 0.10 vs 0.11; P = .55), and risk of anemia (medians 0.07 vs 0.07; P = .50). The DCE and MDT produced similar treatment net value distributions (P > .05) and implied the same treatment recommendations in 82.3% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The DCE and MDT elicited similar preference distributions and produced the same treatment recommendations for most tested cases. However, the share of people supporting the average treatment recommendation differed. More research is needed to determine how these findings would compare with those in other populations (in particular, patients) and applications.

Multistakeholder Perceptions of Additional Value Elements for United States Value Assessment of Health Interventions

OBJECTIVES

Limitations in conventional cost-effectiveness methods have led to calls for incorporation of additional value elements in assessments of health technologies. However, gaps remain in how additional value elements may inform decision making. This study aimed to prioritize additional value elements from the perspective of healthy individuals without a specific condition or indicated for a specific treatment in the United States among a multistakeholder panel and compare the importance of perspective-specific value elements.

METHODS

Additional value elements were prioritized in 2 phases: (1) we identified and categorized additional value elements in a targeted literature review, and (2) we convened a multistakeholder group-based preference elicitation study (N = 28) to evaluate the description of each value element and rank and generate normalized weights of each value element for its significance in value assessment. The importance of additional value elements was also weighted relative to patient-centric value elements.

RESULTS

The rank and weight of contextual value elements among 28 stakeholders were "severity of the disease" (26.2%), "disadvantaged and vulnerable target populations highly represented" (21.8%), "broader economic impact" (17.3%), "risk protection" (13.8%), "rarity of the disease" (11.3%), and "novel mechanism of action" (9.7%). Relative weight of the additional value elements versus patient-centric value elements was 52% and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings may inform priority setting for value frameworks and emerging US government assessments. The group-based elicitation method is repeatable and useful for structured deliberative processes in value assessment and may help improve the consistency and predictability of what is important to stakeholders.

Placing the values and preferences of people most affected by TB at the center of screening and testing: an approach for reaching the unreached

To reach the millions of people with tuberculosis (TB) undiagnosed each year, there is an important need to provide people-centered screening and testing services. Despite people-centered care being a key pillar of the WHO END-TB Strategy, there have been few attempts to formally characterize and integrate the preferences of people most affected by TB - including those who have increased exposure to TB, limited access to services, and/or are at increased risk for TB - into new tools and strategies to improve screening and diagnosis. This perspective emphasizes the importance of preference research among people most affected by TB, provides an overview of qualitative preference exploration and quantitative preference elicitation research methods, and outlines how preferences can be applied to improve the acceptability, accessibility, and appropriateness of TB screening and testing services via four key opportunities. These include the following: (1) Defining the most preferred features of novel screening, triage, and diagnostic tools, (2) exploring and prioritizing setting-specific barriers and facilitators to screening and testing, (3) understanding what features of community- and facility-based strategies for improving TB detection and treatment are most valued, and (4) identifying the most relevant and resonant communication strategies to increase individual- and community-level awareness and demand. Preference research studies and translation of their findings into policy/guidance and operationalization have enormous potential to close the existing gaps in detection in high burden settings by enhancing the people-centeredness and reach of screening and diagnostic services to people most affected by TB who are currently being missed and left behind.

Preference of acromegaly patients for treatment attributes in Spain

OBJECTIVE

Acromegaly is a rare disease caused by increased growth hormone secretion and a subsequent increase in insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels. Patients display multiple comorbidities that affect their quality of life (QoL). Treatment aims to maintain good biochemical control, tumour control and reduce the risk of comorbidities; however, their impact on QoL has been overlooked until recently. We interviewed patients to explore their preferences with regard to treatment attributes.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study based on interviews and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a Spanish cohort.

METHODS

Adult patients diagnosed with acromegaly ≥1 year before the start of the study and under treatment were included. Treatment attributes were collected from patient testimony during face-to-face interviews. Then, a DCE was performed to elicit patient preferences for certain treatment attributes.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients completed the study. QoL improvement was the most important treatment attribute (37%), followed by IGF-I control (20%), blood sugar control (17%) and tumour control (13%). Secondary attributes were pain associated with the route of administration (7%), diarrhoea (2%), administration method (2%) and storage conditions (2%). We then calculated the theoretical share of preference for existing treatments, based on the individual preference utility for each attribute and level. Pegvisomant obtained the highest share of preference overall, and the highest preference as a second-line treatment (53 and 95%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

QoL greatly influences patient treatment preference. Since acromegaly patients are informed and aware of their disease, treatment choices should always be shared with patients.

Eliciting preferences for cancer screening tests: Comparison of a discrete choice experiment and the threshold technique

OBJECTIVE

To compare results of three preference elicitation methods for a cancer screening test.

METHODS

Participants (undergraduate students) completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) task. Accuracy (false positives, false negatives), benefits (lives saved), and cost for a cancer screening test were used as attributes in the DCE and branching logic for the TT. Participants were also asked a direct elicitation question regarding a hypothetical screening test for breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer without mortality benefit. Correlations assessed the relationship between DCE and TT thresholds. Thresholds were standardized and ranked for both methods to compare. A logistic regression used the thresholds to predict results of the direct elicitation.

RESULTS

DCE and TT estimates were not meaningfully correlated (max ρ = 0.17). Participant rankings of attributes matched only 20% of the time (58/292). Neither method predicted preference for being screened (ps > 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The DCE and TT yielded different preference estimates (and rank orderings) for the same participant. Neither method predicted patients' desires for a screening test.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians, patients, policy makers, and researchers should be aware that patient preference results may be sensitive to the method of eliciting preferences.

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.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: evidence from Western Switzerland

Implementing innovations in care delivery in Switzerland is challenging due to the fragmented nature of the system and the specificities of the political process (i.e., direct democracy, decentralized decision-making). In this context, it is particularly important to account for population preferences when designing policies. We designed a discrete choice experiment to study population preferences for coordination-improving care models. Specifically, we assessed the relative importance of model characteristics (i.e., insurance premium, presence of care coordinator, access to specialists, use of EMR, cost-sharing for chronic patients, incentives for informal care), and predicted uptake under different policy scenarios. We accounted for heterogeneity in preferences for the status quo option using an error component logit model. Respondents attached the highest importance to the price attribute (i.e. insurance premium) (0.31, CI: 0.27- 0.36) and to the presence of a care coordinator (0.27, CI: 0.23 - 0.31). Policy scenarios showed for instance that gatekeeping would be preferred to free access to specialists if the model includes a GP or an interprofessional team as a care coordinator. Although attachment to the status quo is high in the studied population, there are potential ways to improve acceptance of alternative care models by implementation of positively valued innovations.

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.

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.

A world of choices: preference elicitation methods for improving the delivery and uptake of HIV prevention and treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growing availability of effective HIV prevention and treatment interventions, there are large gaps in their uptake and sustained use across settings. It is crucial to elicit and apply patients' and stakeholders' preferences to maximize the impact of existing and future interventions. This review summarizes quantitative preference elicitation methods (PEM) and how they can be applied to improve the delivery and uptake of HIV prevention and treatment interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

PEM are increasingly applied in HIV implementation research; however, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have predominated. Beyond DCEs, there are other underutilized PEM that may improve the reach and effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment interventions among individuals by prioritizing their barriers to engagement and determining which attributes of interventions and delivery strategies are most valued. PEM can also enhance the adoption and sustained implementation of strategies to deliver HIV prevention and treatment interventions by assessing which attributes are the most acceptable and appropriate to key stakeholders.

SUMMARY

Greater attention to and incorporation of patient's and stakeholders' preferences for HIV prevention and treatment interventions and their delivery has the potential to increase the number of persons accessing and retained in HIV prevention and treatment services.

Acceptable risks of treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis among first-degree relatives: demographic and psychological predictors of risk tolerance

OBJECTIVES

To quantify tolerance to risks of preventive treatments among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Preventive treatments for RA are under investigation. In a preference survey, adult FDRs assumed a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 years and made choices between no treatment and hypothetical preventive treatment options with a fixed level of benefit (reduction in chance of developing RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, each risk was increased or decreased until participants switched their choice. Perceived risk of RA, health literacy, numeracy, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General were also assessed. Maximum acceptable risk (MAR) was summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants' characteristics were assessed using interval regression with effects coding.

RESULTS

289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean MAR for a 40% reduction in chance of developing RA was 29.08% risk of mild side effects, 9.09% risk of serious infection and 0.85% risk of a serious side effect. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of serious infection risk (mean MAR ±2.06%) than younger participants. Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived higher likelihood of developing RA (mean MAR ±3.34%) and more acceptable to those believing that if they developed RA it would last for a long time (mean MAR ±4.44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, perceived chance of developing RA and perceived duration of RA were associated with tolerance to some risks of preventive RA therapy.

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.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

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.

Patient-centered health technology assessment: a perspective on engagement in health technology assessment by three patient organizations and a health technology assessment body

Patient engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important over the past 20 years. Academic and practitioner literature has produced numerous case studies and best practice accounts of patient involvement practices around the world. This text analyzes the experience of being involved in an Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) HTA review in the United States. The analysis comes from the joint perspective of three patient organizations: Lupus and Allied Diseases Association, Inc.; Lupus Foundation of America; and Black Women’s Health Imperative, as well as ICER. We suggest that meaningful, patient-centered engagement, where patient communities are systematically integrated throughout the review, can be a way of returning to the discipline’s roots focusing on technologies’ societal and ethical impact. It is a process that requires robust commitment from all involved but produces assessments relevant to those directly affected by them.

Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia

Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy.

Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes “Annual bleeding rate,” “Chance to stop prophylaxis,” “Time that side effects have been studied,” and “Quality of Life.”

Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients.