Patient Preferences for Multiple Myeloma Treatments: A Multinational Qualitative Study

A reflection on the use of virtual nominal group technique in health policy and research priority consensus studies

BACKGROUND

Nominal group technique (NGT) is widely used in healthcare research to facilitate decision-making and consensus-building. Traditional NGT requires face-to-face interaction and its limitations include potential biases, logistical challenges and high costs. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a shift to virtual methods, which led to the development of virtual nominal group technique (vNGT). Aim To reflect on the use of vNGT, particularly in the context of Ghader et al (2023 ), to understand its effectiveness in overcoming the limitations of traditional NGT and on its applicability in pandemic-affected scenarios.

METHOD

This paper reviews and discusses literature on the use and effectiveness of NGT compared to other consensus-building methods and examines the emergence of vNGT in overcoming the limitations of traditional NGT. The authors also reflect on their use of vNGT in a study to identify cardiovascular research priorities in the UAE and provide details of its implementation.

DISCUSSION

vNGT bridges the gap between the localised nature of traditional NGT and the global reach of the Delphi technique. It allows for the inclusion of diverse participants, saves costs and offers time-efficiency. The study demonstrated vNGT's adaptability, with participants engaging in idea generation, discussion and prioritisation using online tools. However, challenges persist with vNGT, including reduced accessibility for certain demographics, timing issues across time zones and technical difficulties.

CONCLUSION

vNGT successfully integrates the interactive, consensus-building aspects of NGT with the broad reach of Delphi. It can be valuable in research and decision-making, especially in an era of increased remote collaboration.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

vNGT can significantly impact healthcare research and policy formulation by enabling more inclusive, cost-effective and timely consensus-building processes. However, considerations for accessibility and technical support are crucial for its wider adoption and effectiveness.

The use of virtual nominal groups in healthcare research: An extended scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a consensus group method used to synthesize expert opinions. Given the global shift to virtual meetings, the extent to which researchers leveraged virtual platforms is unclear. This scoping review explores the use of the vNGT in healthcare research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Following the Arksey and O'Malley's framework, eight cross-disciplinary databases were searched (January 2020-July 2022). Research articles that reported all four vNGT stages (idea generation, round robin sharing, clarification, voting) were included. Media Synchronicity Theory informed analysis. Corresponding authors were surveyed for additional information.

RESULTS

Of 2,589 citations, 32 references were included. Articles covered healthcare (27/32) and healthcare education (4/32). Platforms used most were Zoom, MS Teams and GoTo but was not reported in 44% of studies. Only 22% commented on the benefits/challenges of moving the NGT virtually. Among authors who responded to our survey (16/32), 80% felt that the vNGT was comparable or superior.

CONCLUSIONS

The vNGT provides several advantages such as the inclusion of geographically dispersed participants, scheduling flexibility and cost savings. It is a promising alternative to the traditional in-person meeting, but researchers should carefully describe modifications, potential limitations, and impact on results.

Heart failure patients' perspectives on treatment outcomes and unmet medical needs: A qualitative preference study

AIMS

Decision-makers still predominantly focus on the perspective of non-patient stakeholders, which may deviate from the unique perspective of heart failure (HF) patients. To enhance patient-centred decision-making, there is a need for more patient-based evidence derived directly from the patients themselves. Hence, this study aimed to understand (i) HF patients' unmet medical needs and preferred treatment outcomes; (ii) patients' risk tolerance; and (iii) their information needs, uncertainties and satisfaction towards HF treatment.

METHODS

This qualitative patient preference study consisted of a literature review with a systematic search strategy and semi-structured interviews with HF patients, analysed using the framework method. During the interviews, patients were asked to rank a predefined list of disease and treatment-related characteristics informed by the literature review and were able to spontaneously raise additional characteristics.

RESULTS

The study included 14 Belgian HF patients (age range: 58-79, mean age: 72). (i) Regarding their unmet medical needs, HF patients reported that the most important unmet medical needs were shortness of breath and fatigue, as they negatively impact their quality of life (QoL) and independence. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritized improvements in QoL over improvements in life expectancy, whereby the following characteristics received the highest cumulative score: (1) independence, (2) shortness of breath, (3) impaired renal function, (4) survival, (5) fatigue, (6) risk of hospitalization and (7) communication with and between physicians. Patients most often spontaneously raise characteristics related to the general care process. Mechanism of action, route of administration, dose frequency and weight fluctuations scored among the least important characteristics. (ii) Regarding patients' risk tolerance towards HF treatment, some of the patients expressed zero tolerance for side effects, as they had not yet experienced any discomfort caused by the treatment or disease. (iii) Regarding their information needs, patients voiced their desire to receive practical and comprehensible advice orally from their physician because they highly value individualized treatment decision-making. Patients also expressed uncertainties regarding whether the experienced effects were due to their treatment, disease, ageing or other comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that, besides increasing life expectancy, HF patients prioritize improvements in symptoms and side effects reducing their QoL and independence, such as shortness of breath and fatigue. The patient-relevant characteristics identified in this study, from the perspective of HF patients themselves, may be useful to inform clinical trial endpoint selection and guide downstream drug development, evaluation and clinical decision-making towards addressing the unmet medical needs and treatment outcomes of importance to HF patients.

Understanding health outcome preferences of older adults diagnosed with multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Health outcome preferences of older adults with cancer vary based on burden/intensity of treatment and its impact on health outcomes such as survival, quality of life, and functional and cognitive well-being. We studied the association between age and health outcome preferences of adults with multiple myeloma (MM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a single center prospective cohort study, we identified adults ≥50y with MM who underwent geriatric assessment (GA) within 30 days of initiating a new line of therapy. We assessed health outcome preferences using a nine-item health outcome preference scale where patients were asked to prioritize varying treatment outcomes in a Likert scale. We compared the response patterns for each item by age group (50-69y vs ≥70y) using Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test. For items significant in bi-variable analysis, we built proportional odds models to study the association between age and health outcome preferences adjusting for sex, race, frailty, and high risk cytogenetics.

RESULTS

We included 119 patients with a median age of 65y. Of these, 58% were male, 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 28% were frail. Older adults (≥70y) versus younger adults (50-69y) were more likely to prioritize health outcomes such as quality of life (53% vs. 34%), functional independence (74% vs. 33%), maintaining cognitive ability (79% vs. 54%), and living free from pain (50% vs 18%) over longer survival (all p values <0.05). In multivariable models, each one interquartile range (IQR) increase in age was associated with increased odds of prioritization of functional independence [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.44-4.53)], maintaining cognitive ability [aOR 1.75, 95% CI (1.01-3.02)], and willingness to take milder/ fewer treatments [aOR 2.40, 95% CI (1.36-4.26)] over longer survival. Similarly, each IQR increase in age was associated with decreased odds of prioritization of survival over quality of life [aOR 0.45, 95% CI (0.26-0.78)] and survival over being free from pain [aOR 0.39, 95% CI (0.22-0.69)].

DISCUSSION

Three out of four older adults (age ≥ 70y) with MM rated other outcomes, particularly functional and cognitive well-being, above survival. Determining the most significant treatment outcomes for older adults with MM can aid in establishing treatment goals and enhance shared decision-making.

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.

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.

Guidelines for the Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma Clinical Trials

In the era of personalized medicine there is an increasing need for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to become a standard of patient care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are important in assessing significant and meaningful changes as a result of an intervention based on a patient's own perspective. It is well established that active multiple myeloma (MM) can be characterized by a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms, with considerable worsening of quality of life (QoL). In general, and over the past decade, the focus has shifted to obtaining the most durable remissions with the best QoL as primary goals for MM treatment. Patients place considerable value on their QoL and communicating about QoL data prior to treatment decisions allows them to make informed treatment choices. Consequently, optimization of QoL of patients with MM is an important therapeutic goal and the incorporation of PROs into clinical trials has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. In this regard, guidance for the use and reporting of PROMs in MM in clinical trials is warranted. Under the auspices of the European Hematology Association, evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. This document provides general considerations for the choice of PROMs in MM clinical trials as well as a series of recommendations covering a selection of PROMs in MM clinical trials; the mode of administration; timing of assessments; strategies to minimize missing data; sample size calculation; reporting of results; and interpretation of results.

Experience of Autologous Stem Cell Transplant in Multiple Myeloma: The Patient and Caregiver Perspective

A qualitative study of the experiences of patients who received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) was conducted to better understand their MM disease journey, including first symptoms, diagnosis, ASCT, and recovery. Sixteen participants, including 12 patients with MM and 4 caregivers of patients with MM, were interviewed in focus group meetings. Pain, weakness, and bone pain were common first symptoms among patients. The MM diagnosis was often made by a hematologist or oncologist. Patients were referred to a specialized oncologist after diagnosis, who was the primary driver in making ASCT treatment decisions. Eight patients received their ASCT in the inpatient setting, with some having lengthy hospital stays; 4 received their ASCT in an outpatient setting with 3 eventually being hospitalized. The focus groups identified that patients and caregivers perceived various unmet needs and impacts on quality of life throughout their transplant journey. Educational resources and innovative therapies are needed to reduce the disease burden of MM and enhance the quality of life for both patients and their caregivers.

Advances in the management of myeloma: an update

Myeloma is an aggressive B-cell malignancy resulting from an uncontrolled production of plasma cells in the bone marrow. A multitude of drugs and combinations of drugs are now approved for use to treat this complex disease and nurses require knowledge and skills in recognising and managing new side effects associated with these treatments. This article presents an overview of some of the newer and recently approved drugs and the important side effects that have been associated with them. Clinical nurse specialists and advanced nurse practitioners are at the forefront of patients' treatment journeys and play a central role in supporting patients and families to manage side effects. Through this support, patients can continue the treatments for as long as possible with the aim of maintaining a good quality of life.

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.

Drivers of physician decision-making and patient perspectives across lines of therapy in multiple myeloma in the USA

Aim: To explore treatment selection for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which remains complex due to heterogeneity of available treatments and lack of defined standard of care. Patients & methods: The Adelphi Real World MM Disease Specific Programme surveyed physicians in the USA and their patients with MM to collect real-world data on patterns and perceptions of MM treatment across lines of therapy (LOT). Results: Triplets were the most common regimens across each LOT. Physicians reported efficacy-related factors, health insurance coverage, and clinical guidelines as key determinants of treatment choice regardless of LOT. Patients identified better quality of life as the most important treatment benefit. Conclusion: The DSP RW data highlight drivers of RRMM treatment choice from physicians' and patients' perspectives and need for a more holistic approach to guidelines and clinical trials that encompasses patient perspectives.

What Affects Treatment Underuse in Multiple Myeloma in the United States: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematologic malignancy. African Americans are more likely than Whites to be diagnosed with and die of MM, but they experience the same survival times in clinical trials, suggesting that differences in survival may be attributed to differences in receipt of treatment or differences in access to new treatments. We undertook this study to identify the reasons and needs underlying disparities in treatment among patients diagnosed with MM.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews in 2019-2020 with patients diagnosed with MM between 2010 and 2014 who were identified as eligible for transplant and maintenance therapy and having experienced delays in or underuse of treatment for MM. Underuse was defined as the lack of a particular treatment that the patient was eligible to receive, not being transplanted if eligible, and/or not receiving maintenance therapy. Underuse included patients' decision to delay harvest or autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for the time being and return to the decision in the future. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Four investigators independently coded transcripts through inductive analysis to assess reasons for treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Of the 29 patients interviewed, 68% experienced treatment underuse: 21% self-identified as African American, 5% as Hispanic, 10% as mixed race, 57% as White, and 16% as Asian. There were no racial differences in reasons for underuse or delay. Themes relating to treatment underuse included: perceived pros and cons of treatment, including potential harm or lack thereof in delaying treatment; physician recommendations; and personal agency.

CONCLUSION

Patients' decision making, delays, and underuse of MM treatment are influenced by social, personal, medical, and contextual factors. Patients consider their relationship with their physician to be one of the most significant driving forces in their decisions and treatment plans.

Optimizing the value of lenalidomide maintenance by extended genetic profiling: an analysis of 556 patients in the Myeloma XI trial

Prediction of individual patient benefit from lenalidomide (Len) maintenance after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains challenging. Here, we investigated extended molecular profiling for outcome prediction in patients in the National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma XI (MyXI) trial. Patients in the MyXI trial randomized to Len maintenance or observation after ASCT were genetically profiled for t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(1p), gain(1q), and del(17p) and co-occurrence of risk markers was computed. Progression-free survival (PFS), subsequent progression (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) were calculated from maintenance randomization, and groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Of 556 patients, 17% with double-hit multiple myeloma (MM) (≥2 risk markers), 32% with single-hit (1 risk marker), and 51% without risk markers were analyzed. Single-hit MM derived the highest PFS benefit from Len maintenance, specifically, isolated del(1p), del(17p), and t(4;14), with ∼40-fold, 10-fold, and sevenfold reduced risk of progression or death (PFS), respectively, compared with observation. This benefit translated into improved PFS2 and OS for this group of patients compared with observation; median PFS was 10.9 vs 57.3 months for observation vs Len maintenance. Patients with isolated gain(1q) derived no benefit, and double-hit MM limited benefit (regardless or risk lesions involved) from Len maintenance. Extended genetic profiling identifies patients deriving exceptional benefit from Len maintenance and should be considered for newly diagnosed patients to support management discussions along their treatment pathway. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN49407852 as # ISRCTN49407852.

Patient perspectives on considerations, tradeoffs, and experiences with multiple myeloma treatment selection: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Advances in multiple myeloma treatment and a proliferation of treatment options have resulted in improved survival rates and periods of symptom-free remission for many multiple myeloma patients. As a result, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) concerns related to myeloma treatments have become increasingly salient for this patient population and represent an important consideration guiding patients' treatment choices. To gain an understanding of patients' experiences with choosing myeloma therapies and explore the HRQoL concerns that are most important to them, we interviewed a diverse sample of US-based multiple myeloma patients about their treatment considerations.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using in-depth interviews. Participants reflected on (1) the factors that were most important to them when thinking about multiple myeloma treatment and how these have changed over time, (2) how they might weigh the importance of treatment efficacy vs. side effects, (3) trade-offs they would be willing to make regarding efficacy vs. HRQoL, and (4) treatment changes they had experienced. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and narratives were analyzed using applied thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 21 patients, heterogeneous in their disease trajectory and treatment experience. Participants were 36 to 78 years, 52% female, and 38% Black. Efficacy was named as the most important treatment consideration by almost two-thirds of participants, and over half also valued HRQoL aspects such as the ability to maintain daily functioning and enjoyment of life. Participants expressed concern about potential treatment side effects and preferred more convenient treatment options. Although participants stated largely trusting their clinicians' treatment recommendations, many said they would stop a clinician-recommended treatment if it negatively impacted their HRQoL. Participants also said that while they prioritized treatment efficacy, they would be willing to change to a less efficacious treatment if side effects became intolerable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings link to other reports reflecting considerations that are important to multiple myeloma patients, including the importance placed on increasing life expectancy and progression-free survival, but also the tension between treatment efficacy and quality of life. Our results extend these findings to a racially diverse US-based patient population at different stages in the disease trajectory.

Fitness and frailty in myeloma

As the aging population grows, so too does the number of well-tolerated antimyeloma therapies. Physicians will see an increasing volume of patients for subsequent lines of therapy, which could now extend this relationship for over a decade. For younger patients, treatment choices are infrequently impacted by concerns of fitness, but instead about effecting the deepest, most durable response. Older adults, in contrast, are more likely to experience under- than overtreatment, and therefore more objective (and ideally straightforward) ways to evaluate their fitness and ability to tolerate therapy will increasingly assist in decision-making. Post hoc analyses categorizing the fitness of trial patients in the modern treatment era globally demonstrate that even in highly selected populations, those that are recategorized as less fit or frail are consistently at higher risk of inferior outcomes and increased toxicities. Real-world data are comparatively lacking but do demonstrate that most patients with myeloma are not representative of those enrolled on clinical trials, generally more heavily burdened by comorbidities and more likely to be categorized as "less than fit." Simultaneously, the number of therapeutic options open to patients in the relapsed setting continues to grow, now including T-cell engagers and cellular therapies, with their unique toxicity profiles. The aim of this review is to summarize the available data, highlight some of the approaches possible to easily assess fitness and how results might inform treatment selection, and illustrate ways that patients' condition can be optimized rather than lead to exclusion from the more complex therapies newly available.

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.

The impact of COVID-19 on autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma: A single-centre, qualitative evaluation study

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard of care in biologically fit, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients, offering better therapeutic outcomes and improved quality of life (QoL). However, with the UK's 1st national lockdown on 23/03/2020, several guidelines recommended deferring ASCT due to risks of infection, with resource limitations forcing some units to suspend ASCT entirely. Such changes to patients' treatment plans inevitably altered their lived experience during these uncertain times with expected impact on QoL. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to gain insight into MM patients' understanding of their disease, initial therapy and ASCT, and their response to therapy changes. A clinical snapshot of how COVID-19 affected the MM ASCT service in a single UK institution is also provided, including changes to chemotherapy treatment plans, timing, and prioritisation of ASCT. Framework analysis identified 6 overarching themes: (1) beliefs about ASCT, (2) perceptions of information provided about MM and ASCT, (3) high levels of fear and anxiety due to COVID-19, (4) feelings about ASCT disruption or delay due to COVID-19, (5) perceptions of care, and (6) importance of social support. Example subthemes were beliefs that ASCT would provide a long-remission/best chance of normality including freedom from chemotherapy and associated side-effects, disappointment, and devastation at COVID-related treatment delays (despite high anxiety about infection) and exceptionally high levels of trust in the transplant team. Such insights will help us adjust our service and counselling approaches to be more in tune with patients' priorities and expectations.

Recent guidelines for high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant for systemic AL amyloidosis: a practitioner's perspective

INTRODUCTION

High dose melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been transformative in treating AL amyloidosis since the early nineties. Recently, the European Haematology Association (EHA) and International Society of Amyloidosis (ISA) have developed a combined guideline for the management of patients undergoing an ASCT for AL amyloidosis.

AREAS COVERED

In this practitioner's perspective, we review the guideline, focussing on 6 major areas and offer practical advice for its application. We provide a perspective on the optimal use of ASCT and its potential application in the future.

EXPERT OPINION

The EHA-ISA guideline comprehensively outlines the practicalities of performing an ASCT in AL amyloidosis. The critical aspect is careful patient selection. Vigilant fluid balance assessments are crucial as associated complications are common and dangerous.The role of ASCT is changing with improving haematological responses associated with novel agents. Evidence is limited for the use of ASCT in patients who achieve a complete haematological response (CR). Therefore, ASCT should be considered for those who only achieve a very good partial response (VGPR)/partial response (PR) and fulfil the strict selection criteria. Future research identifying the cohort who would benefit most from ASCT in the era of novel therapies is warranted.

Characterizing the Patient Journey in Multiple Myeloma: A Patient Perspective (Preprint)

Background

The patient experience of multiple myeloma (MM) is multifaceted and varies substantially between individuals. Current published information on the patient perspective and treatment of MM is limited, making it difficult to gain insights into patient needs regarding the condition.

Objective

In this review, a combined research method approach (ie, the review of published literature and social media posts) was undertaken to provide insight into patients’ perspectives on the burden and treatment of MM, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of MM on caregivers of patients with MM.

Methods

Targeted searches of PubMed and PsycINFO were conducted from November 16, 2010, to November 16, 2020; in parallel, patient-reported information derived from social media posts from 6 patient advocacy websites and YouTube were searched. The review of patient advocacy websites and YouTube targeted patient-reported information from patients with a self-reported diagnosis of MM who discussed their experience of MM and its treatments.

Results

A total of 27 articles and 138 posts were included (patient-reported information included data from 76 individuals), and results from both sources showed that patients experienced a variety of symptoms and treatment side effects, including neuropathy, fatigue, nausea, and back pain. These can affect areas of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), including physical functioning; emotional, psychological, and social well-being; the ability to work; and relationships. Patients valued involvement in treatment decision-making, and both the patient-reported information and the literature indicated that efficacy and tolerability strongly influence treatment decision-making. For patients, caregivers, and physicians, the preference for treatments was strongest when associated with increased survival. Caregivers can struggle to balance care responsibilities and jobs, and their HRQOL is affected in several areas, including emotional-, role-, social-, and work-related aspects of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged patients’ ability to manage MM because of limited hospital access and restrictions that negatively affected their lives, psychological well-being, and HRQOL. Unmet patient needs identified in the literature and patient-reported information were for more productive appointments with health care professionals, better-tolerated therapies, and more support for themselves and their caregivers.

Conclusions

The combination of published literature and patient-reported information provides valuable and rich details on patient experiences and perceptions of MM and its treatment. The data highlighted that patients’ HRQOL is impeded not only by the disease but also by treatment-related side effects. Patients in the literature and patient-reported information showed a strong preference for treatments that prolong life, and patients appeared to value participation in treatment decisions. However, there remain unmet needs and areas for further research, including treatment, caregiver burden, and how to conduct appointments with health care professionals. This may help improve the understanding of the journey of patients with MM.

Plain Language Summary

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is the second most common cancer that affects blood cells. In this study, researchers wanted to know patients’ views on the effects of MM and the treatments they received. Researchers also looked at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients’ treatment and the impact of MM on caregivers. To this end, the researchers reviewed information from 27 published studies and 138 social media posts by 76 patients with MM. Patients commonly reported nerve pain, tiredness, feeling sick, and back pain caused by MM and the treatments they received. The effects of MM and treatments affected patients’ physical function; emotional, psychological, and social well-being; ability to work; and relationships. The researchers found that patients wanted to be involved in decisions related to their treatment. The effectiveness against MM and known negative effects strongly influenced the choice of treatments for patients. Increased survival was the strongest factor in the choice of treatment for patients, caregivers, and doctors. Researchers found that the emotional-, role-, social-, and work-related aspects of caregivers’ lives were affected by caring for patients with MM. The COVID-19 pandemic also affected the ability of patients to manage their MM because of limited hospital access and the effects of restrictions that impacted their lives and psychological well-being. Finally, the researchers identified some areas requiring improvement, including unproductive appointments with health care professionals, the need for treatments with fewer negative effects, and more support for patients with MM and their caregivers. This information may be useful to improve and understand the experience of patients with MM.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.