RESUMO
Introduction: About half of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) are not eligible for Standard Induction Chemotherapy (SIC). Hypomethylating Agents (HMAs) intravenously (IV) or subcutaneously (SC) in a clinical setting are typically offered as an alternative. However, injectable HMAs may be burdensome for patients given the frequent hospital visits and side effects. This study explored patient treatment preferences for different modes of administration (MOA) and the relative importance of treatment-related characteristics that influence treatment decisions. Methods: Semi-structured 1:1 interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with AML in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, who are not eligible for SIC, had experience with HMAs or were scheduled to be treated with HMAs. After discussing their experience of living with AML and its treatments, patients were presented with hypothetical treatment scenarios to explore their preferences, and a ranking exercise to assess the relative importance of treatment characteristics that influence their treatment-decisions for AML. Results: Most patients reported an overall preference for oral administration over parenteral routes (71%), mostly due to convenience. Those preferring IV or SC routes (24%) reasoned with faster speed of action and onsite monitoring. When presented with a hypothetical situation of a patient having to choose between two AML treatments that were identical except for their MOA, the majority preferred the oral route (76%). Regarding treatment characteristics that influence treatment decisions, patients most frequently reported efficacy (86%) and side effects (62%) as important, followed by mode of administration (29%), daily life impacts (24%) and location of treatment (hospital versus home) (14%). However, only efficacy and side effects were rated as number one deciding factors (67% and 19%, respectively). Patients most frequently rated dosing regimen (33%) as least important. Conclusion: The insights gained from this study may help support patients with AML who are receiving HMA treatment instead of SIC. A potential oral HMA with similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to injectable HMAs could influence treatment decisions. Furthermore, an oral HMA treatment might decrease the burden of parenteral therapies and improve patients' overall quality of life. However, the extent of influence MOA has on treatment decisions requires further investigation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Designing clinical trials with the emphasis on the patient-centered approach and focusing on clinical outcomes that are meaningful to patients is viewed as a priority by drug developers, regulatory agencies, payers, clinicians, and patients. This study aimed to capture information on clinical trial endpoints that would be most important and relevant for patients with advanced breast cancer, based on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients with either advanced triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC] and a maximum of two lines of systemic therapy or hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative [HR+/HER2-] breast cancer and a maximum of three lines of systemic therapy, participated in semi-structured concept elicitation interviews. Concept saturation was assessed. A sign, symptom, or impact was defined as "salient" if mentioned by ≥ 60% of participants, with an average bother rating of ≥ 5 (0-10 Scale). Participants were also asked about treatment priorities and to evaluate hypothetical scenarios showing different health-related functioning and quality-of-life treatment outcomes, using graphical representations. RESULTS: Thirty-two participants (97% women; aged 29+ years) with TNBC (n = 17) or HR+/HER2- breast cancer (n = 15) provided generally similar reports on symptom experience, with fatigue and pain being most salient, though importance of certain treatment-related symptoms varied between the two groups. Patients reported consistent perspectives on the importance of treatment outcomes: when considering a new treatment, they prioritized efficacy of the therapy, acceptable tolerability, stability, predictability of symptoms over time, and the duration of preserved health-related quality of life and physical functioning. The meaningful difference in preserved physical functioning was 2-3 months for 46% of participants with TNBC, whereas for most participants with HR+/HER2- breast cancer it started from 6-7 months. Both groups of participants found it easier to accept some toxicity at the beginning of therapy if it was followed by improvement, as opposed to improvement followed by deterioration. CONCLUSION: The results may help to inform the design of patient-centered clinical trials, to interpret health-related quality of life and/or patient-reported outcomes, and to optimize care for patients with advanced breast cancer.