An international discrete choice experiment assessing patients' preferences for disease-modifying therapy attributes in multiple sclerosis

Preferences, Adherence, and Satisfaction: Three Years of Treatment Experiences of People with Multiple Sclerosis

Background

To reduce the risk of long-term disability in people with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS), an increasing number of disease-modifying immune therapies (DMT) are available, involving diverse mechanisms of action, levels of efficacy, treatment risks, and tolerability aspects. Including patient preferences and expectations in shared decision-making may improve treatment satisfaction, adherence, and persistence.

Purpose

To investigate long-term alignment of individual preferences and expectations of pwMS with their actual DMT and its effect on treatment satisfaction, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adherence, and treatment discontinuation.

Methods

A total of 401 pwMS beginning a new DMT were enrolled from 2015 to 2018 in a non-interventional study at three German MS centres. Patient preferences regarding DMT, TSQM-9, SF36, and self-reported adherence as well as relapses and EDSS were recorded at baseline and every 3 to 6 months for up to 3 years.

Results

Efficacy and tolerability were the highest-ranking preferences at baseline. Actual selection of DMT corresponded more closely to safety than efficacy, tolerability, or convenience preferences. Participants reported excellent adherence throughout the study. DMT persistence was 69.0%, with earlier discontinuation for injectable vs oral or infusion therapies. Breakthrough disease, rather than patient-reported outcomes, was the main driver of DMT discontinuation. For all routes of administration, global treatment satisfaction increased over time despite lower satisfaction with convenience. Several patterns of changing preferences were observed.

Conclusion

This study provides insight into the interaction of DMT preferences of pwMS with their actual treatment experience. Treatment decisions should be aligned with long-term expectations of pwMS to promote continuous adherence.

International Delphi Consensus on the Management of AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD: Recommendations for Eculizumab, Inebilizumab, and Satralizumab

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare debilitating autoimmune disease of the CNS. Three monoclonal antibodies were recently approved as maintenance therapies for aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G (AQP4-IgG)-seropositive NMOSD (eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab), prompting the need to consider best practice therapeutic decision-making for this indication. Our objective was to develop validated statements for the management of AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD, through an evidence-based Delphi consensus process, with a focus on recommendations for eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

METHODS

We recruited an international panel of clinical experts in NMOSD and asked them to complete a questionnaire on NMOSD management. Panel members received a summary of evidence identified through a targeted literature review and provided free-text responses to the questionnaire based on both the data provided and their clinical experience. Responses were used to generate draft statements on NMOSD-related themes. Statements were voted on over a maximum of 3 rounds; participation in at least 1 of the first 2 rounds was mandatory. Panel members anonymously provided their level of agreement (6-point Likert scale) on each statement. Statements that failed to reach a predefined consensus threshold (≥67%) were revised based on feedback and then voted on in the next round. Final statements were those that met the consensus threshold (≥67%).

RESULTS

The Delphi panel comprised 24 experts, who completed the Delphi process in November 2021 after 2 voting rounds. In round 1, 23/25 statements reached consensus and were accepted as final. The 2 statements that failed to reach consensus were revised. In round 2, both revised statements reached consensus. Twenty-five statements were agreed in total: 11 on initiation of or switching between eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab; 3 on monotherapy/combination therapy; 7 on safety and patient population considerations; 3 on biomarkers/patient-reported outcomes; and 1 on research gaps.

DISCUSSION

An established consensus method was used to develop statements relevant to the management of AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD. These international statements will be valuable for informing individualized therapeutic decision-making and could form the basis for standardized practice guidelines.

Patient-Centric Product Development: A Summary of Select Regulatory CMC and Device Considerations

Patient-centric drug development describes the systematic approach to incorporating the patient's perspectives and preferences into the design, assessment, and production of a therapeutic product. While a patient centric approach can be applied at any stage of the drug development lifecycle, an integrated end-to-end strategy is often most effective to create an optimized product for the patient at the earliest possible timepoint. The importance of patient centricity is well recognized by health authorities and biopharmaceutical organizations which have established toolsets, guidances, and methodologies for incorporating patient input during the clinical stage of development. However, in addition to clinical research, there are other significant aspects of product development that profoundly impact the patient experience. Specifically, chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) and device aspects must also be acknowledged and addressed as part of a cohesive patient-centric development strategy. This review explores current applications and regulatory considerations for patient-centric approaches across the product lifecycle, including R&D, early product development, clinical development, device and combination product development, and post-approval change management. Specific topics of discussion include the contributions of product modality, formulation, and devices to the patient experience; usage of the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP) as a patient-centered design tool; and post-approval product optimization. Future advancements in regulatory data management and information exchange are also explored as potential enablers of patient engagement which support enhanced communication and interconnectivity between stakeholders. Multidisciplinary collaboration between patients, health authorities, health care providers, and the biopharmaceutical industry is ultimately necessary for ensuring that medicinal products, and their corresponding regulatory processes, take on a patient-first mindset that prioritizes patient needs, values, and preferences.

Real-world treatment preferences among health care providers in the United States in selecting disease modifying therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis: a discrete choice experiment

AIMS

Health care providers (HCPs) treating multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinical practice have numerous disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) to consider when evaluating treatment options. This study assessed the treatment preferences of HCPs in the United States, both direct (explicit) and derived (explicit and implicit), when selecting MS DMTs based on clinical and logistical treatment attributes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 45-minute web-enabled questionnaire was administered to HCPs who manage patients with MS to assess the importance of treatment attributes. HCPs were recruited through an online panel. This study examined treatment attributes relevant to treatment decisions in MS, with a focus on the burden to HCPs and their staff, as well as HCP attitudes toward various aspects of MS care such as diagnosis, treatment prioritization, and ease of initiating or switching DMTs. The study also employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess direct and derived treatment preferences.

RESULTS

The study recruited 145 HCPs. Direct assessments (a score of greater than 7.0 was considered important) suggested that safety (mean importance rating = 7.8/9) and relative risk reduction in relapses (7.6/9) and disability progression (7.5/9) were most important when selecting DMTs. In contrast, derived importance from the DCE (higher points corresponding to greater importance) suggested that logistical attributes such as dose frequency (mean relative attribute importance = 17.5%), dose titration (10.3%), formulation (9.4%), and volume of calls (9.1%) were important considerations, along with efficacy (16.5%), safety (9.8%), and gastrointestinal tolerability (9.4%).

LIMITATIONS

This study may have been subject to selection bias due to the application of eligibility criteria, the convenient sampling recruitment methodology, and recruitment of HCPs with internet access.

CONCLUSION

In the direct assessment, clinical attributes were chosen as the most important treatment attributes by HCPs. However, in the DCE, derived treatment decisions rated logistical attributes as also being as important in treatment choice.

To wait, or too late? Modeling the effects of delayed ofatumumab treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Several disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) reduce relapse rates and slow disease progression. RRMS DMTs have varying efficacy and administration routes; DMTs prescribed first may not be the most effective on relapses or disease progression. Here, we aimed to quantify the benefit of initiating ofatumumab, a high-efficacy DMT, earlier in the treatment pathway.

METHODS

Aggregate data from a real-world cohort of patients with RRMS, who were eligible for dimethyl fumarate (DMF) or ofatumumab treatment within the UK National Health Service (N = 615), were used to produce a simulated patient cohort. The cohort was tracked through a discrete event simulation (DES) model, based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), with a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes assessed were: mean number of relapses, time to wheelchair (EDSS ≥7), and time to death. Two modeling approaches were used. The first compared outcomes between two treatment sequences (base case: ofatumumab to natalizumab versus DMF to ofatumumab). The second incorporated a time-specific delay of 1-5 years for switching from DMF to ofatumumab; the difference in outcomes as a function of increasing delay to ofatumumab are reported.

RESULTS

Compared with delayed ofatumumab, fewer relapses and increased time to wheelchair were predicted for earlier ofatumumab in the treatment-sequence approach (mean relapses over the lifetime time horizon: 8.63 versus 9.00; time to wheelchair: 17.55 versus 16.60 years). Time to death was similar for both sequences. At Year 10, a numerically greater proportion of patients receiving earlier ofatumumab had mild disease (EDSS 0-3: 44.12% versus 40.06%). Greater differences, reflecting poorer outcomes, were predicted for relapses and time to wheelchair with increasing delays to ofatumumab treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The DES model provided a means by which the magnitude of benefit associated with earlier ofatumumab initiation could be quantified; fewer relapses and a prolonged time to wheelchair were predicted.

Key Drivers and Facilitators of the Choice to Use mHealth Technology in People With Neurological Conditions: Observational Study

Background

There is increasing interest in the potential uses of mobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as wearable biosensors, as supplements for the care of people with neurological conditions. However, adherence is low, especially over long periods. If people are to benefit from these resources, we need a better long-term understanding of what influences patient engagement. Previous research suggests that engagement is moderated by several barriers and facilitators, but their relative importance is unknown.

Objective

To determine preferences and the relative importance of user-generated factors influencing engagement with mHealth technologies for 2 common neurological conditions with a relapsing-remitting course: multiple sclerosis (MS) and epilepsy.

Methods

In a discrete choice experiment, people with a diagnosis of MS (n=141) or epilepsy (n=175) were asked to select their preferred technology from a series of 8 vignettes with 4 characteristics: privacy, clinical support, established benefit, and device accuracy; each of these characteristics was greater or lower in each vignette. These characteristics had previously been emphasized by people with MS and or epilepsy as influencing engagement with technology. Mixed multinomial logistic regression models were used to establish which characteristics were most likely to affect engagement. Subgroup analyses explored the effects of demographic factors (such as age, gender, and education), acceptance of and familiarity with mobile technology, neurological diagnosis (MS or epilepsy), and symptoms that could influence motivation (such as depression).

Results

Analysis of the responses to the discrete choice experiment validated previous qualitative findings that a higher level of privacy, greater clinical support, increased perceived benefit, and better device accuracy are important to people with a neurological condition. Accuracy was perceived as the most important factor, followed by privacy. Clinical support was the least valued of the attributes. People were prepared to trade a modest amount of accuracy to achieve an improvement in privacy, but less likely to make this compromise for other factors. The type of neurological condition (epilepsy or MS) did not influence these preferences, nor did the age, gender, or mental health status of the participants. Those who were less accepting of technology were the most concerned about privacy and those with a lower level of education were prepared to trade accuracy for more clinical support.

Conclusions

For people with neurological conditions such as epilepsy and MS, accuracy (ie, the ability to detect symptoms) is of the greatest interest. However, there are individual differences, and people who are less accepting of technology may need far greater reassurance about data privacy. People with lower levels of education value greater clinician involvement. These patient preferences should be considered when designing mHealth technologies.

Clinical Evaluation of Siponimod for the Treatment of Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: Pathophysiology, Efficacy, Safety, Patient Acceptability and Adherence

INTRODUCTION

A number of disease-modifying therapies have been approved for use in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) in the past two decades. However, only few treatment options are available for patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). Siponimod has recently been approved for use in patients with active forms of SPMS (who experience clinical relapses or new lesions on MRI superimposed on secondary progression independent of relapse activity).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive review on the mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, cost effectiveness and patient adherence with siponimod.

METHODS

We performed a PubMed search using the search terms: "siponimod", "secondary progressive multiple sclerosis", "sphingosine 1-phosphate modulators". Titles and abstract were screened and selected for relevance to the key section of this article.

FINDINGS

Siponimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulator with selectivity to S1PR-1 and 5. Modulation of this receptor on lymphocytes causes its internalization and degradation, preventing their egress from lymphoid tissues to the blood. In the pivotal Phase 3 randomized controlled trial EXPAND, siponimod was superior to placebo in reducing the risk of disability progression confirmed at 3 and 6 months, as well as the development of new MRI lesions and the rate of brain volume loss. Secondary analysis also showed a benefit on measures of cognitive functioning. The risk of lymphopenia and first-dose bradycardia appears to be lower with siponimod compared to non-selective S1P1R modulators. Different CYP2C9 genotypes affect the metabolism of siponimod; hence, genetic testing is required to adapt the titration and final dose accordingly.

CONCLUSION

Long-term extension and real-world studies will allow further evaluation of efficacy and safety in this population. Future research should focus on better defining SPMS, and identifying biomarkers of progression and outcome measures of treatment response in this category of patients.

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.

An implantable device to treat multiple sclerosis: A discrete choice experiment on patient preferences in three European countries

BACKGROUND

Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) take their treatment via pills, injections or infusions. A novel mode of disease-modifying treatment administration, an implantable device, is under development. This study determined MS patient preferences for three modes of first-line treatment administration (implant, pills, injectables), and trade-offs regarding treatment characteristics.

METHODS

A survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted among MS patients in the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Respondents had to repeatedly choose between various treatment scenarios with four treatment characteristics: risk of relapse, reduction of disease progression, risk of side effects and mode of administration. Data was analysed using a panel latent class logit model.

RESULTS

Based on the preferences of 753 MS patients (response rate 7%: 753/11202), two latent classes were identified (class probability of 74% vs 26%). Persons with relapsing-remitting MS and who administered medication via injections generally preferred any treatment over no treatment. Patients who could walk without an aid were more likely to prefer no treatment. Reducing disease progression was the most important treatment characteristic class 1. Mode of administration was the most important characteristic in class 2. Patients were willing to accept an increase in risk of relapse and disease progression to get their treatment via an implant rather than injections. Predicted uptake was the highest for the implant, followed by pills, injections, and no treatment.

CONCLUSION

We found that a drug-delivery implant could be a potential addition to the MS treatment landscape: MS patients are willing to trade-off risk of relapse and disease progression for an implant, and predicted uptake for an implant is relatively high.

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

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

Patient and Neurologist Preferences in the United States for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis Treatments: Findings from a Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with central nervous system dysfunction and accelerated brain volume loss (BVL). There exists a paucity of research examining the importance of BVL to patients and neurologists and exploring whether such preferences may differ between these two groups. This study sought to evaluate the preferences of patients and neurologists for RRMS treatments by considering benefits and risks associated with novel and common disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

US patients diagnosed with non-highly active RRMS and US-based neurologists completed an online cross-sectional survey. A discrete choice experiment was used to assess patient and neurologist treatment preferences, with neurologists considering preferences for patients with non-highly active RRMS. Respondents chose between two treatment profiles with seven attributes identified in qualitative research: 2-year disability progression; 1-year relapse rate; rate of BVL; and risks of gastrointestinal symptoms, flu-like symptoms, infection, and life-threatening events. Attribute-level weighted preferences were estimated using a hierarchical Bayesian model.

RESULTS

Analyses included 150 patients with non-highly active RRMS (mean age: 54 years) and 150 neurologists (65% in private practice). Among patients, the most important treatment attribute was reducing the rate of BVL, followed by reducing the risk of infection and risk of flu-like symptoms. In contrast, the most important treatment attribute among neurologists was reducing the risk of a life-threatening event, followed by slowing the rate of 2-year disability progression and risk of infection.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight differences in treatment preferences between US patients and neurologists for non-highly active RRMS. The importance placed by patients on slowing the rate of BVL makes this a key topic that should be covered in the shared decision-making process.