Drivers of patient and caregiver preferences for growth hormone deficiency treatments in France: a discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: To identify drivers of preference for growth hormone deficiency (GHD) treatment in French children, and their caregivers, and to quantify the relative importance of different aspects of treatment modalities using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Attributes characterizing GHD treatment modalities were identified through a literature review, qualitative interviews and focus groups with children, adolescents, and caregivers. A DCE questionnaire of 12 choice tasks was administered online to four groups of participants: autonomous adolescents (12 to 18 years), non-autonomous adolescent / caregiver dyads, caregivers of non-autonomous children (3 to 11 years) and autonomous children / caregiver dyads. The survey was pilot tested. A multinomial logit model with random effects was used to estimate preference weights for all attribute levels. RESULTS: Frequency of administration, injection pain, dose setting, type of device, storage and device reusability were selected as DCE attributes following the qualitative research phase and a pilot study. A total of 105 patients were represented in the DCE survey. Frequency of administration and injection pain were the attributes with the greatest influence on respondents' preferences and had similar importance. Weekly administration was significantly preferred over daily administration by all groups of participants. Respondents' choices were also significantly influenced by the type of device, dose setting and device reusability. CONCLUSION: Children with GHD and their caregivers prefer a less frequent injection schedule and lower injection pain. Both aspects of treatment modalities are important to consider in treatment decisions to alleviate the daily burden for GHD patients and their families and potentially enhance treatment adherence.

Treatment burden, adherence, and quality of life in children with daily GH treatment in France.

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe in a real-life setting the treatment burden and adherence and quality of life (QOL) of children treated with daily injections of growth hormone and their relationship with treatment duration. Design: This non-interventional, multicenter, cross-sectional French study involved children aged 3-17 years treated with daily growth hormone injections. Methods: Based on a recent validated dyad questionnaire, the mean overall life interference total score (100 = most interference) was described, with treatment adherence and QOL, using the Quality of Life of Short Stature Youth questionnaire (100 = best). All analyses were performed according to treatment duration prior to inclusion. Results: Among the 275/277 analyzed children, 166 (60.4%) had only growth hormone deficiency (GHD). In the GHD group, the mean age was 11.7 ± 3.2 years; median treatment duration was 3.3 years (interquartile range 1.8-6.4). The mean overall life interference total score was 27.7 ± 20.7 (95% CI (24.2; 31.2)), with non-significant correlation with treatment duration (P = 0.1925). Treatment adherence was good (95.0% of children reported receiving >80% of planned injections over the last month); it slightly decreased with treatment duration (P = 0.0364). Children's overall QOL was good (81.5 ± 16.6 and 77.6 ± 18.7 according to children and parents, respectively), but subscores of the coping and treatment impact domains were <50. Similar results were observed in all patients independently of the condition requiring treatment. Conclusions: This real-life French cohort confirms the treatment burden of daily growth hormone injections, as previously reported in an interventional study.

Cost-Utility of Acromegaly Pharmacological Treatments in a French Context.

Objective: Efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients. Methods: A Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 € per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: FGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.

Pegvisomant treatment in acromegaly in clinical practice: Final results of the French ACROSTUDY (312 patients).

OBJECTIVE: We report the final analysis of the French ACROSTUDY, using data revised and enriched since the 2013 interim analysis. Our objective was to validate the use of pegvisomant (PEGV) in the treatment of acromegaly and to determine efficacy and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with acromegaly treated with PEGV and followed up for at least 5 years were included. Eighty-eight investigators from 62 clinical centers in France included patients from April 2007 to April 2014. PEGV dose and administration frequency were determined by the physicians, based on their clinical evaluation and local habits. No additional examinations beyond those performed in normal follow-up were required. Minimum recommended follow-up included check-ups at treatment initiation, 6 months, 12 months and then annually. RESULTS: In total, 312 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 46.1±14.3 years at introduction of PEGV. Median PEGV treatment duration was 6.3 years and median follow-up was 5.6 years. Median dose at initiation was 10mg/day. The percentages of patients with IGF-1 ≤ ULN (upper limit of normal) were 10% (n=300) at baseline, 54% at 6 months (n=278), and 61.7% (n=253) at 2 years, then stabilizing at 64.4% (n=180) at 5 years. Mean PEGV dose was 17.4±11.7mg in patients with controlled disease versus 21.1±17.3mg in those without control at 5 years. At 5 years, 21.8% of patients (54/248) were receiving >30mg PEGV per day. In patients with at least one pituitary imaging procedure during the 5-year follow-up (n=292), the most recent image showed stable tumor volume in 212 subjects (72.6%), increased volume in 13 (4.5%), and decreased volume in 30 (10.3%). No PEGV treatments were permanently discontinued due to transaminase elevation. There were no cases of liver failure. CONCLUSION: The French ACROSTUDY showed normalization of IGF-1 levels in 64.4% of a real-life cohort of patients, mostly with uncontrolled disease despite multiple prior therapies. Long-term follow-up showed a sustained effectiveness and good long-term safety.

Pegvisomant in combination or pegvisomant alone after failure of somatostatin analogs in acromegaly patients: an observational French ACROSTUDY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: After surgery, when somatostatin analogs (SAs) do not normalise IGF-I, pegvisomant (PEG) is indicated. Our aim was to define the medical reasons for the treatment of patients with PEG as monotherapy (M) or combined with SA, either as primary bitherapy, PB (PEG is secondarily introduced after SA) or as secondary bitherapy, SB (SAs secondarily introduced after PEG). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed French data from ACROSTUDY. RESULTS: 167, 88 and 57 patients were treated with M, PB or SB, respectively, during a median time of 80, 42 and 70 months. The median PEG dose was respectively 15, 10 and 20 mg. Before PEG, the mean IGF-I level did not differ between M and PB but the proportion of patients with suprasellar tumour extension was higher in PB group (67.5% vs. 44.4%, P = 0.022). SB regimen was used preferentially in patients with tumour increase and IGF-I level difficult to normalise under PEG. In both secondary regimens, the decrease of the frequency of PEG's injections, compared to monotherapy was confirmed. However, the mean weekly dose of PEG between M and PB remained the same. CONCLUSIONS: The medical rationale for continuing SAs rather than switching to PEG alone in patients who do not normalise IGF-I under SAs was a tumour concern with suprasellar extension and tumour shrinkage under SA. A potential explanation for introducing SA in association with PEG appears to be a tumour enlargement and difficulties to normalise IGF-I levels under PEG given alone. In both regimens, the prospect of lowering PEG injection frequency favoured the choice.