Preferences for a Clostridioides difficile vaccine among adults in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile (C.diff) infection (CDI) causes significant morbidity and mortality among older adults. Vaccines to prevent CDI are in development; however, data on the target population's preferences are needed to inform vaccination recommendations in the United States (US). This study assessed US adults' willingness to receive a C.diff vaccine and examined how vaccine attributes influence their choices. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among US adults aged ≥50 years. DCE attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection, reduction in symptom severity, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, number of doses, and side effects. The DCE included 11 choice tasks, each with two hypothetical vaccine profiles and an opt-out (i.e., no vaccine). Attribute-level preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian modeling. Attribute relative importance (RI) was compared between select subgroups. RESULTS: Of 1216 adults in the analyses, 29.9% reported they knew either 'a little' (20.7%) or 'a lot' (9.2%) about C.diff before the study. A C.diff vaccine was chosen 58.0% of the time (vs. opt-out) across choice tasks. It was estimated that up to 75.0% would choose a vaccine when OOP was $0. Those who were immunocompromised/high-risk for CDI (vs. not) more frequently chose a C.diff vaccine. Decreases in OOP costs (RI = 56.1), improvements in vaccine effectiveness (RI = 17.7), and reduction in symptom severity (RI = 10.3) were most important to vaccine choice. The rank ordering of attributes by importance was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSION: OOP cost, improvements in vaccine effectiveness, and reduction in CDI severity were highly influential to vaccine selection. Most adults aged ≥50 years were receptive to a C.diff vaccine, especially with little-to-no OOP cost, suggesting that mandating insurance coverage of vaccination with no copayment may increase uptake. The limited awareness about C.diff among adults presents an opportunity for healthcare providers to educate their patients about CDI prevention.

Treatment Preferences Among Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Introduction: The treatment landscape for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) has evolved quickly with the introduction of immunotherapies as a first-line treatment option. This study examined the preferences of patients with aRCC to better understand the characteristics of preferred treatments and the tradeoffs patients are willing to make when choosing treatment. Methods and Materials: An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted in the US from May to August 2022 with adult patients with aRCC. A discrete-choice experiment assessed treatment preferences for aRCC. Attributes were identified through literature review and qualitative interviews and included progression-free survival, survival time, objective response rate, duration of response, risk of serious side effects, quality of life (QoL), and treatment regimen. Results: Survey results from 299 patients with aRCC were analyzed. Patients had a mean age of 55.7 years, were primarily White (50.5%) and were evenly representative of males (49.8%) and females (48.8%). Improvements in all attributes influenced treatment choice. On average, increasing survival time from 10% to 55% was most important, followed by improvements in QoL (ie, from worsens a lot to improves) and improvements to treatment regimen convenience (ie, less frequent infusions). Risk of serious adverse events and increased progression-free time, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) were of lesser importance. Conclusion: In this study, patients highlighted that improving survival time was the most important and that QoL is also an important consideration. Discussions during treatment decision-making may benefit from broader conversations around treatment characteristics, including impacts on QoL and convenience of the regimen.

Patient Preferences Influencing Treatment Decision-Making in Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Purpose: Patients with early breast cancer (eBC) are increasingly provided with different options, which may involve a sequence of different treatments and treatment modalities, and eligibility for certain adjuvant treatments depending upon pre-surgical and surgical outcomes. This study examined patient preferences around aspects of treatment decision-making in eBC. Patients and Methods: A total of 452 patients with self-reported eBC in Germany (n=151), Italy (n=151), and Japan (n=150) completed an online survey about physician interactions and treatment side effects. The survey included best-worst scaling (BWS) to assess prioritization of 13 statements reflecting aspects of treatment decision-making. In a series of choice tasks, participants chose their most and least preferred options among subsets of 4 statements. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate BWS preference scores for each statement. BWS scores were based on the number of times a statement was chosen as most versus least preferred; scores total 100 for each patient. Results: The most preferred aspects of treatment decision-making were "treatment aggressiveness matches personal risk" (mean BWS score = 13.49), "being told about what is coming" (13.18), deciding based on "own surgical outcome" (11.90), "avoiding unnecessary treatment" (10.35), and "involving in treatment decisions" (9.44). The least preferred aspects were "not being asked about treatment decisions along the way" (3.27) and "receiving the same treatment as other patients" (3.41). Patients in Japan preferred "being told about what is coming", "deciding based on own surgical outcome", "avoiding unnecessary treatment", and being "involved in decisions" more than patients in Italy and Germany. Patients in Germany were more satisfied with their physician interactions and care, although their outcomes were not always better than those in Italy and Japan. Conclusion: Patients value individualized treatment tailored to their risk of recurrence and tolerance of side effects, highlighting the need for focused patient education about options, to encourage their engagement.

New treatment pathways based on promising biomarkers are being studied in early breast cancer. This study aimed to understand the importance that patients may place on different features describing how decisions are made along potential treatment pathways for early breast cancer. Participants in Italy, Germany, and Japan were asked to compare various aspects of treatment decision-making and choose those that were most and least important to them. Among the aspects tested, the top 4 were similar across countries: the desire to receive treatment with a level of aggressiveness that matches their individual prognosis, the need to receive adequate and timely information about their upcoming treatment, the need to tailor treatment decisions based on their individual surgery outcomes, and a desire to avoid overtreatment. Not being involved in treatment decisions was the least preferred of the aspects. Patients in Germany and Italy most valued the ability to tailor the aggressiveness of their treatment based on their individual risk of recurrence, whereas patients in Japan prioritized being knowledgeable and prepared for their treatment journey. The results from this study emphasize patients' desire to be adequately informed about available treatment choices for early breast cancer, to avoid unnecessary treatments, and to be involved in treatment decisions.

Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments among Canadian adults: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preferences for key attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine treatments and assess heterogeneity in preferences among Canadian participants with migraine. BACKGROUND: Current treatment options for migraine prevention differ in their attributes, including mode of administration, efficacy, and dosing frequency; preferences for such attributes can vary among patients. With the advent of new therapies, evidence demonstrating patient preferences for injected or infused preventive migraine treatments is necessary. METHODS: Canadian adults self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine completed a cross-sectional, internet-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment. Participants were presented with attributes of preventive migraine treatments, including speed of onset, durability of efficacy, mode of administration, administration setting, and dosing frequency. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify subgroups of patients who differed in their treatment preferences. RESULTS: In total, 200 participants completed the survey. Participants' treatment preferences were most sensitive to improvements in the durability of effectiveness from "wears off 2 weeks before next dose" to "does not wear off before the next dose" (absolute difference in weights = |-0.95 to 1.07| = 2.02) and improvements from "cranial injections" to "intravenous infusions" (|-1.04 to 0.58| = 1.62); participants equally preferred self-injection and intravenous infusion from a health-care provider (mean weight = 0.58 and 0.47, respectively) as a route of administration over cranial injections (mean weight = -1.04). Three subgroups were identified with LCA: group one (n = 103) prioritized fast-acting and durable therapies, group two (n = 54) expressed aversion to cranial injections, and group three (n = 43) favored treatments administered in a health-care provider setting. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Canadian adults with migraine, we showed that durability of effectiveness and mode of administration are key attributes influencing patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments; however, certain groups of patients may differ in their treatment priorities. Our results highlight the need for patient-provider discussions regarding treatment attributes and consideration of patients' preferences when selecting a preventive migraine treatment.

A latent class analysis of factors influencing preferences for infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventives among pregnant people in the United States.

A maternal vaccine and long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) were recently approved to protect infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We identified subgroups of pregnant people with different preferences for RSV preventives and respondent characteristics associated with subgroup membership. An online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was conducted among US pregnant people. RSV preventive attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection during RSV season, injection recipient/timing, preventive type (vaccine or mAb), and type of visit required to receive injection. In DCE choice tasks, pregnant people selected between two hypothetical preventive profiles with varying attribute-levels and a no-preventive option. Logistic regression, including latent class analysis (LCA), was used to analyze the data. Of 992 pregnant people (mean age: 30.0 years), 60.3% were expecting their second/later birth. LCA identified three preference subgroups: 'Effectiveness' (preventive choice mostly driven by increases in effectiveness; 51.4% class membership probability), 'Season' (preventive choice mostly driven by improvement in duration of protection during the RSV season; 39.2% class membership probability), and 'No Preventive' (frequently chose no-preventive option; 9.4% class membership probability). 'Effectiveness' and 'Season' preferred maternal vaccine over mAb; mAb was preferred by 'No Preventive.' Perceiving RSV as serious for infants, higher health literacy, and lower household income were associated with 'Effectiveness.' Perceiving RSV as serious for pregnant people was associated with 'Season.' Perceiving RSV to not be serious for pregnant people and not being employed were associated with 'No Preventive.' Subgroups of pregnant people vary in preferences for RSV preventives. Most pregnant people preferred a maternal vaccine, although some may be more willing to accept alternative preventive options.

Healthcare Providers' and Pregnant People's Preferences for a Preventive to Protect Infants from Serious Illness Due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

We assessed the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive characteristics on the intentions of pregnant people and healthcare providers (HCPs) to protect infants with a maternal vaccine or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Pregnant people and HCPs who treated pregnant people and/or infants were recruited via convenience sample from a general research panel to complete a cross-sectional, web-based survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) wherein respondents chose between hypothetical RSV preventive profiles varying on five attributes (effectiveness, preventive type [maternal vaccine vs. mAb], injection recipient/timing, type of medical visit required to receive the injection, and duration of protection during RSV season) and a no-preventive option. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise was included to explore the impact of additional attributes on preventive preferences. Data were collected between October and November 2022. Attribute-level preference weights and relative importance (RI) were estimated. Overall, 992 pregnant people and 310 HCPs participated. A preventive (vs. none) was chosen 89.2% (pregnant people) and 96.0% (HCPs) of the time (DCE). Effectiveness was most important to preventive choice for pregnant people (RI = 48.0%) and HCPs (RI = 41.7%); all else equal, pregnant people (RI = 5.5%) and HCPs (RI = 7.2%) preferred the maternal vaccine over mAbs, although preventive type had limited influence on choice. Longer protection, protection starting at birth or the beginning of RSV season, and use for both pre-term and full-term babies were ranked highest in importance (BWS). Pregnant people and HCPs strongly preferred a preventive to protect infants against RSV (vs. none), underscoring the need to incorporate RSV preventives into routine care.

A Novel Approach to Computing Preference Estimates for Different Treatment Pathways: An Application in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer may progress through multiple treatments with differing adverse effect profiles. Moreover, pathways may be fixed or flexible in allowing for escalation or de-escalation of treatment depending on interim outcomes. We sought to develop a methodology capable of estimating preferences for the entirety of a pathway involving a sequence of different treatments. METHODS: Patients with early breast cancer completed an online discrete choice experiment to assess preferences for eight key early breast cancer attributes. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to calculate attribute-level preference weights. Preference weights for hypothetical pathways were estimated by summing the respective weights for efficacy, flexible or fixed pathway, duration, administration regimen, and adverse event risk, the last two of which were time-adjusted by multiplying each weight by the proportion of time spent on a selected treatment. RESULTS: Increases in the risk of a serious adverse event were most influential in treatment pathway preferences, followed by increases in efficacy and decreases in overall pathway duration. Patients preferred a flexible pathway versus a fixed pathway. Pathway preference estimates fluctuated in a logically consistent manner. Switching from a flexible to a fixed pathway yielded a significantly lower pathway preference. For this same pathway, when adjuvant treatment was replaced with a treatment with a more favorable toxicity profile and shorter duration, it offset the negative impact of the more toxic neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This novel methodology accounts for patient preference throughout a sequence of treatments, allowing for comparison of preferences across complex treatment pathways.

Prioritizing Treatment Goals of People Diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder in the US: Best-Worst Scaling Results.

Purpose: Bipolar I disorder (BP-I) is associated with significant disease burden, but evidence on treatment goals in people diagnosed with BP-I is scarce. This study sought to quantify treatment goals related to the pharmacological management of BP-I in adults in the US and to identify if subgroups of people with similar treatment goals exist. Patients and Methods: A best-worst scaling (BWS) of treatment goals was developed based on available literature and input from experts and patients and was distributed as part of a survey between August and September 2021. Survey participants were adults with a self-reported diagnosis of BP-I who were recruited via an online panel in the US. Participants were asked to prioritize the importance of 16 treatment goals using BWS. BWS scores were computed using multinomial logistic regression, with the scores across all goals summing to 100 for each participant. Subgroups of people with similar preferences were identified using latent class analysis. Results: The most important treatment goals for people diagnosed with BP-I (N=255) were "being less impulsive, angry, or irritable" (score: 9.73), or being "able to feel pleasure or happiness" (score: 9.54). Goals related to reducing the incidence of various potential adverse events of medication (scores: ≤4.51) or "reducing dependence on others" (score: 3.04) were less important. Two subgroups were identified. One subgroup (n=111) prioritized symptom-focused goals, considering "reducing frequency of mania, depression, and mixed episodes" and "being less impulsive, angry or irritable" the most important (scores: 12.46 and 11.85, respectively). The other subgroup (n=144) placed significantly more importance on social functioning-focused goals, including beginning or maintaining a relationship with a partner/significant other, and with family and/or friends (scores: 8.45 and 7.70, respectively). Conclusion: People diagnosed with BP-I prioritized emotional improvements. Subgroups of people with BP-I prioritized either symptom-focused or social functioning-focused treatment goals.

Patient Preferences for Adjuvant Treatment in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment.

Purpose: The evolving treatment landscape in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma creates challenges for clinicians and patients in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Here, we aimed to understand adjuvant treatment preferences among patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection, including tradeoffs between efficacy outcomes and toxicity risks. Patients and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study utilizing a discrete choice experiment was conducted across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany via a web-based survey. Patients ≥18 years of age who self-reported as having been diagnosed with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were included. Patients indicated their preferences between hypothetical treatment profiles varying in eight attributes relating to efficacy, regimen, and side effects. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression; relative attribute importance estimates were calculated. Results: Overall, 207 patients were included (age ≥56 years, 65.7%; male, 54.1%). Patients chose adjuvant treatment 91.2% of the time vs no treatment. Prolonging overall survival from 25 to 78 months was most important, followed by reducing serious side effect risks. Increasing disease-free survival from 12 to 24 months was more important than decreasing risks of fatigue from 54% to 15% and nausea from 53% to 7%. Treatment with the shortest dosing regimen was more important for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prolonging overall survival was more important than reducing the risk of a serious side effect in non-US patients; the opposite was found in the United States. Conclusion: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection preferred adjuvant treatment over no treatment regardless of side effects. Patients prioritized overall survival improvements followed by a reduced side effect profile.

A global neuronopathic gaucher disease registry (GARDIAN): a patient-led initiative.

BACKGROUND: Gaucher disease (GD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder. GD types 2 and 3 are known as neuronopathic Gaucher disease (nGD) because they have brain involvement that progresses over time. Implementing a systematic approach to the collection of real-world clinical and patient-relevant outcomes data in nGD presents an opportunity to fill critical knowledge gaps and ultimately help healthcare providers in the management of this patient population. This paper summarizes the development of a patient-initiated Gaucher Registry for Development Innovation and Analysis of Neuronopathic Disease (GARDIAN). METHODS: The International Gaucher Alliance led the GARDIAN planning, including governance, scope, stakeholder involvement, platform, and reporting. Registry element input was determined in a series of meetings with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers, who identified key clinical variables and the draft content of nGD patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and observer-reported outcomes (ObsRO) focusing on symptoms, patient physical and emotional functioning. These were then tested in cognitive interviews with patients with nGD (> 12 years of age) and caregivers. RESULTS: Core registry data elements (n = 138) were identified by seven global clinical experts from Egypt, Germany, Israel, Japan, United Kingdom (UK), and United State (US) and reviewed via online Delphi method by 14 additional clinicians with experience of nGD from six countries and three pharmaceutical representatives. The elements were consistent with those identified via interviews with 10 patients/caregivers with nGD from Japan, Sweden, UK, and US. Key domains identified were demographics, diagnostic information, health status, clinical symptomatology, laboratory testing, treatment, healthcare resource utilization, aids/home improvements, and patient/caregiver burden and quality of life, specifically physical functioning, self-care, daily and social activities, emotional impacts, support services, and caregiver-specific impacts. Nine caregivers and six patients from the US, UK, China, Mexico, Egypt, and Japan participated in the cognitive interviews that informed revisions to ensure that all items are understandable and interpreted as intended. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive set of clinical and patient relevant outcomes data, developed collaboratively among all stakeholders, to be reported using GARDIAN will bridge the many gaps in the understanding of nGD and align with regulatory frameworks on real-world data needs.

Patient preferences for attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine medications: Findings from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences among adults with migraine for differentiating attributes of injected or infused preventive treatment options and evaluate their importance in determining a treatment choice. BACKGROUND: Adults with migraine and health-care providers consider many factors when making treatment decisions. Injected or infused preventive migraine treatment options differ in several attributes, including mode of administration and dosing frequency, which may be preferentially selected or avoided by patients. Understanding a patient's preference is important for clinicians as they advise on various treatment options. METHODS: A total of 604 US adults diagnosed with migraine participated in an online survey that captured information on demographics, migraine history, and treatment preferences. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to evaluate participants' preferences for specific attributes of injected/infused preventive migraine therapies. The DCE data were utilized to estimate attribute importance (expressed as a percentage) and identify subgroups that had different distributions of preferences. RESULTS: In the overall migraine population, mode of administration (28.8%), durability of effectiveness (27.0%), and speed of onset (25.5%) had the highest relative importance, whereas administration setting (9.9%) and dosing frequency (8.8%) had the lowest. Four distinct subgroups were identified: Group 1 (n = 128) preferred self-injection administration and durability of effectiveness; Group 2 (n = 189) expressed aversion to cranial injections; Group 3 (n = 158) prioritized rapid speed of onset; and Group 4 (n = 129) favored health-care provider administration and durability of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Speed of onset, durability of effectiveness, and mode of administration are key moderators of treatment preference among US adults with migraine. Certain segments of the migraine population prioritize specific treatment attributes over others, with intravenous infusion not considered a barrier in three of four identified segments. Clinicians can best help their patients find the right medication if they understand which medication attributes are most and least important to them.

Development of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Towards Nasal versus Autoinjector Glucagon Delivery Devices for Treatment of Severe Hypoglycemia.

Background: For individuals managing diabetes, the administration of glucagon for severe hypoglycemia can be lifesaving, yet, until recently, there were no easy-to-use devices for these stressful emergencies. New products have emerged to meet this need, including nasal glucagon (NG) and auto-injector glucagon (AI). This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a new measure, the Glucagon Device Attitudes Questionnaire (GDAQ), in assessing attitudes toward NG and AI from the perspectives of persons with diabetes on insulin (PWDs), caregivers, and acquaintances. Methods: Developed based on qualitative research, the GDAQ consists of 38 rating items for each device and 16 direct-elicitation of attitudes of device relative to each other. It was administered to participants via a cross-sectional online survey. Twenty-six rating items were included in principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Items comprising each factor were averaged to form scales. Additionally, 12 direct elicitation items were averaged to form an overall "Attitudes" scale. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were provided for the rating items not included in the factor analysis. Results: A total of 405 PWDs, 313 caregivers, and 305 acquaintances participated. Three factors were identified: "Prepared and Protected" (7 items), "Hesitation" (12 items), and "Device Perceptions by Others" (7 items); factor loadings ranged from 0.13 to 0.92, 0.50 to 0.89, and 0.16 to 0.92, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for the four scales ranged from 0.76 to 0.96. Correlations of the scales with their global item ranged from 0.30 to 0.90. The items outside of the factor analysis showed good distribution in responses and differentiation between the two devices. Discussion: This study supports the validity and reliability of the GDAQ, which successfully conceptualizes attitudes towards devices for administering glucagon among different respondent groups. Use of the GDAQ can help guide the development and testing of new glucagon drug/device combinations.

Benefit-risk trade-offs in treatment choice in advanced HER2 negative breast cancer: patient and oncologist perspectives.

Aim: To evaluate which treatment attributes US patients and oncologists prioritize in HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods: Preferences were assessed via a discrete choice experiment. Also, treatment goal statements were rated on an agreement scale. Results: Patients (n = 169) most valued improving overall survival (OS), followed by improving nausea and neuropathy. Oncologists (n = 117) most valued improving OS, followed by neuropathy and progression-free survival. Regarding treatment goals, oncologists (67%) perceived that patients are more focused on efficacy than quality of life; fewer patients (29%) agreed with this statement; 81% of oncologists and 51% of patients agreed that patients prefer oral treatment. Conclusion: Patients and oncologists were willing to accept increases in toxicities in exchange for efficacy improvements in HER2 negative ABC.

The goal of this study was to understand the preferences of patients and physicians for the benefits and risks associated with the treatment of advanced breast cancer that expresses normal amounts of the HER2 protein (termed as HER2 negative). Respondents completed an exercise where they compared two treatment options at a time that varied in their level of effectiveness and their potential for certain side effects and then selected the treatment option they most preferred. From this exercise, the treatment features that matter the most to patients and physicians were discovered. The most important treatment features for patients were lengthening life expectancy, decreasing the chance of experiencing nausea affecting appetite, and decreasing the chance of experiencing nerve damage involving numbness and/or pain, possibly severe, in hands and feet which may limit daily activities. The most important treatment features for physicians were lengthening life expectancy, decreasing the change of experiencing nerve damage involving numbness and/or pain, possibly severe, in hands and feet which may limit daily activities, and lengthening the time that cancer remains stable and does not worsen. Patients and physicians also rated how much they agreed with statements about their goals for treatment. While 67% of oncologists believed that their patients are more focused on killing the cancer than their quality of life, only 27% of patients were more focused on killing the cancer than their quality of life.

Patients' and oncologists' preferences for second-line maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Aim: To understand the preferences of US patients and oncologists for PARP inhibitors as second-line maintenance (2LM) for epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of treatment attributes. Results: The most valued attributes were risk of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; patients, n = 204) and progression-free survival (PFS; oncologists, n = 151). To accept a 37% increased risk of grade 3/4 AEs, PFS would need to increase by 27.9 months (patients) and 6.3 months (oncologists). The least valued attributes were dosing form/frequency (patients) and grade 3/4 anemia risk (oncologists). Conclusion: Patients' and oncologists' willingness to make benefit-risk trade-offs in the 2LM setting suggests that the PFS gains observed in selected studies of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA-mutated disease are worth the toxicity risk.

Plain language summary Maintenance therapy is a treatment option intended to keep ovarian cancer from coming back or getting worse for as long as possible after responding to chemotherapy. PARP inhibitors are a new type of maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. This study aimed to understand the patients' and physicians' preferences for the benefits and risks associated with different PARP inhibitors used as maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. Participants were asked to compare various treatment options based on their different safety profiles, effectiveness and form of medication (e.g., three capsules by mouth once a day versus two tablets by mouth twice a day), and then choose the treatment they most preferred. Through this exercise, the treatment features that mattered most to patients and physicians were identified. The most important treatment feature for patients was decreasing the chance of experiencing a serious side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization. In contrast, physicians valued lengthening the time that a cancer remains stable and does not worsen. To accept a 37% higher chance of experiencing a side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization, patients expect their cancer to remain stable and not worsen for an additional 28 months. This was a large difference from the 6 months that the physicians would consider as acceptable. The least important treatment features for patients are the amount of pills required per dose, the form of the given medication (e.g., tablet vs capsule) and the schedule of taking the treatment. On the other hand, physicians were least concerned about lowering the risk of experiencing low blood counts that, requiring medical intervention.

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.

Patient and neurologist preferences in the UK for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatments: findings from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare patient and neurologist preferences for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treatments with respect to benefits and risks associated with common and novel disease-modifying therapies, including brain volume loss (BVL). METHODS: Patients with non-highly-active RRMS and neurologists in the United Kingdom completed an online cross-sectional survey. Patients completed one discrete choice experiment (DCE) exercise and providers completed two, one focusing on treatment for non-highly-active RRMS and another focused on highly active RRMS. Respondents chose between two treatment profiles that varied on 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 event. Bayesian modeling was used to estimate attribute-level weighted preferences. RESULTS: Patients (n = 144) prioritized slowing the rate of BVL, followed by reducing risk of infection, rate of 2 year disability progression and 1 year relapse rate. For non-highly-active patients, neurologists (n = 101) prioritized slowing the rate of BVL, followed by reducing 2 year disability progression, risk of infection and 1 year relapse rate. For highly active patients, neurologists prioritized lowering the 1 year relapse rate, followed by slowing the rate of BVL and 2 year disability progression. In all three DCEs, rate of BVL was approximately twice as important as reducing the risks of flu-like symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms and life-threatening event. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights similarities in treatment preferences for non-highly-active RRMS among patients and neurologists and differences in neurologists' preferences for treating non-highly-active vs. highly active RRMS. This research identifies BVL as a treatment outcome that should be discussed when physicians engage in shared decision-making with patients.

Adult Patient Preferences for Long-Acting ADHD Treatments: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) requires a multifaceted approach including psychosocial interventions and pharmacological treatment. This study evaluates preferences for specific attributes associated with different long-acting stimulant treatment among US adults with ADHD. METHODS: Patients completed an online, cross-sectional survey, incorporating a discrete choice experiment to assess preferences for attributes. RESULTS: Analyses included 200 adults with ADHD (mean age 33.0 years; 60% self-reporting moderate severity); the mean (SD) Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale-v1.1 score was 45.9 (12.4). Overall, patients valued speed of onset most and risk of rebound least. Three population groups with distinct preferences were identified: side effect-driven (n=69, 35%), quick onset-driven (n=47, 24%) and quick onset and long duration-driven (n=84, 42%). CONCLUSION: This study shows differences in how adults with ADHD value and assess benefit-risk trade-offs when considering the desired attributes of stimulant treatments, highlighting the importance of patient-physician shared decision-making to optimize the desired benefits of individualized treatment.

Patient, Oncologist, and Payer Preferences for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy and CDK4/6 Inhibitor Regimens in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

PURPOSE: Several adjuvant phase III trials are evaluating cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (eBC). This study examines preferences for this combination regimen and ET alone among patients, oncologists, and payers in the United States. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was administered to patients, practicing oncologists, and payers. In the DCE, respondents selected between hypothetical treatment profiles with attributes associated with ET monotherapy and CDK4/6i + ET regimens. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), nausea, diarrhea, neutropenia, alopecia, dosing schedule, and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. Payers had the additional attribute of annual per-patient treatment cost. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute-level and relative attribute importance. RESULTS: For patients (n=300) and oncologists (n=200), iDFS was most important (2 to 3 times more important than the next most important attribute), followed by neutropenia and diarrhea risks for patients and oncologists, respectively. Patients and oncologists required an improvement in iDFS of 8.0 and 5.6 percentage-points, respectively, to accept an increase in diarrhea risk from 11% to 81%. Payers (n=60) viewed annual per-patient cost as most important for treatment access decision-making, closely followed by iDFS. Payers required an improvement in iDFS of 21.8 percentage-points to accept an increase in cost from $5,100 to $149,400. Across all stakeholder groups, dosing schedule, alopecia risk, and ECG monitoring were perceived as least important. CONCLUSION: Patients, oncologists, and payers expect a large absolute risk reduction in efficacy to offset the potential risks and costs of adding a CDK4/6i to current standard of care. An open discussion between all stakeholders is necessary to ensure that decision-making, whether at patient- or system-level, is informed by preferences for novel treatments, like CDK4/6is.

Patient Preferences for Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Treatment for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Japan: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) dosing regimens for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) include pro re nata, every 2 months, and treat-and-extend, resulting in different outcomes and patient burden. Although reflecting patient preferences in treatment decision-making is desirable, few studies have examined this in Japan. This study assessed the patients willingness to trade-off between different dosing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with wAMD were recruited from four Japanese university hospitals to complete a face-to-face cross-sectional survey. In a discrete choice experiment, patients were asked to choose their preferred option from two anti-VEGF treatment profiles shown side-by-side across a series of choice tasks. The profiles varied on four attributes: number of injections in 12 months, number of physician consultations in 12 months, chance of 1-year visual acuity (VA) improvement, and chance of 2-year VA maintenance. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayes' models. RESULTS: Overall, 120 patients (30 treatment naïve and 90 anti-VEGF experienced) completed the survey. Patients were willing to accept an increase from three to approximately eight injections in 12 months to increase the chance of 1-year VA improvement from 25% to 40%. They would be willing to accept 11 injections in 12 months if the chance of 2-year VA maintenance increased from 80% to 96%. The most valued attributes were increasing the chance of 2-year VA maintenance and reducing the number of injections in 12 months, which were each about twice as important as decreasing physician consultations in 12 months and increasing the chance of 1-year VA improvement (p<0.001). Among the dosing regimens, patients most preferred treat-and-extend because of its higher chance of 2-year VA maintenance. CONCLUSION: Informing patients with wAMD about the likelihood of long-term VA maintenance when selecting treatment may increase the acceptance of an optimal treatment regimen and number of injections.

Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers.

BACKGROUND: Formative qualitative research is foundational to the methodological development process of quantitative health preference research (HPR). Despite its ability to improve the validity of the quantitative evidence, formative qualitative research is underreported. OBJECTIVE: To improve the frequency and quality of reporting, we developed guidelines for reporting this type of research. The guidelines focus on formative qualitative research used to develop robust and acceptable quantitative study protocols and corresponding survey instruments in HPR. METHODS: In December 2018, a steering committee was formed as a means to accumulate the expertise of the HPR community on the reporting guidelines (21 members, seven countries, multiple settings and disciplines). Using existing guidelines and examples, the committee constructed, revised, and refined the guidelines. The guidelines underwent beta testing by three researchers, and further revisions to the guidelines were made based on their feedback as well as on comments from members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) and the editorial board of The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. RESULTS: The guidelines have five components: introductory material (4 domains), methods (12), results/findings (2), discussion (2), and other (2). They are concordant with existing guidelines, published examples, beta-testing results, and expert comments. CONCLUSIONS: Publishing formative qualitative research is a necessary step toward strengthening the foundation of any quantitative study, enhancing the relevance of its preference evidence. The guidelines should aid researchers, reviewers, and regulatory agencies and promote transparency within HPR more broadly.