Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia in the United Kingdom: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background: Acute leukemia is a cancer of the white blood cells which progresses rapidly and aggressively. There are two types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The latter has a rare subtype: acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). For some patients, following first-line treatment, remission is not achieved ("refractory disease"), and for others the leukemia returns after achieving remission ("relapse"). For these individuals, outcomes are typically poor. It is, therefore, important to understand patients' treatment priorities in this context. Methods: Building upon formative qualitative research, an online survey containing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to explore patients' treatment preferences in the relapsed/refractory setting. The DCE attributes were mode of administration; quality of life during treatment; chance of response; duration of response; and quality of life during response. Each respondent completed twelve scenarios containing two hypothetical treatments. Participants were eligible if they lived in the United Kingdom and had a diagnosis of acute leukemia. The data were analysed using a latent class model. Results: A total of 95 patients completed the survey. The latent class analysis identified two classes. For both, chance of response was the most important attribute. For class 1, every attribute was important, whereas for class 2, the only important attributes were quality of life (during treatment and response) and chance of response. A greater proportion of respondents would fall into class 1 overall, and those with ALL or APL and those more recently diagnosed were more likely to be in class 2. Conclusion: Our results indicate that patients are strongly concerned about the chance of response, as well as quality of life (to a lesser extent), when faced with different treatment options in the relapsed/refractory setting. However, there is significant preference heterogeneity within the patient population, and other treatment characteristics also matter to many.

The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study.

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Understanding Quality of Life in Patients With Acute Leukemia, a Global Survey.

Purpose: The Acute Leukemia Advocates Network (ALAN) sought to determine which factors are most associated with poor quality of life (QoL) in patients with acute leukemia and to determine key issues and unmet needs through administration of an online survey distributed worldwide via partner patient organizations. Methods: ALAN developed a questionnaire informed by literature review and based extensively on the hematological malignancy-specific patient-reported outcomes (HM-PRO) measure to assess the impact of acute leukemia on QoL and its relationships with patients' demographics, disease state, disease impact, and support from health care professionals. Univariate and multivariable statistical analysis was used to investigate relationships between HM-PRO scores and the other factors. Results: Of 552 respondents from 42 countries, 332 had acute myeloid leukemia, 139 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and 81 had acute promyelocytic leukemia (survey data collected in 2019). Younger age, female gender, and lower income were all significantly negatively associated with QoL. Weak or moderate correlations were observed between overall support, management, and impact of treatment and diagnosis of acute leukemia. Feeling isolated and having reduced ability to carry out physical or enjoyable activities were the most important individual factors, while the best predictors for QoL impact were age, gender, and income (model r2=0.16, complete case n=449). Conclusions: Findings indicated key factors, particularly age, gender, and socioeconomic state, that clinicians responsible for the care of patients with acute leukemia should be aware of when designing support strategies. The importance of social functioning in relation to patient QoL also should be included in considerations.

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment.

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Treatment-free remission in chronic myeloid leukemia: the patient perspective and areas of unmet needs.

In CML, treatment-free remission (TFR) refers to having a stable deep molecular response without the need for ongoing tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. Whilst recommendations exist about the technical management of stopping and re-starting therapy, much is still unknown about the experiences of those considering and undertaking TFR. This study sought to obtain the patient perspective, identify areas of unmet needs and create recommendations for improvements. Fifty-six percent of patients reported fear or anxiety during treatment discontinuation, whereas only 7% of patients were asked if they needed psychological support during this period. Where patients re-initiated treatment; 59% felt scared or anxious, and 56% felt depressed. Twenty-six percent of re-initiated patients received psychological and/or emotional support at this time. Sixty percent of patients experienced withdrawal symptoms whilst discontinuing treatment, however, 40% of patients who experienced withdrawal symptoms reported that they were not fully supported by their doctor in managing all the symptoms. Healthcare professionals should further consider how they monitor the psychological well-being of patients who are discontinuing or re-initiating treatment, and review what support is offered in response to identified concerns. Surveillance of withdrawal symptoms should be a priority during treatment discontinuation, along with how healthcare professionals assist in the management of these.

HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies.

This last decade has been marked by significant advances in the development of cell and gene (C&G) therapies, such as gene targeting or stem cell-based therapies. C&G therapies offer transformative benefits to patients but present a challenge to current health technology decision-making systems because they are typically reviewed when clinical efficacy data are very limited and when there is uncertainty about the long-term durability of outcomes. These challenges are not unique to C&G therapies, but they face more of these barriers, reflecting the need for adapting existing value assessment frameworks. Still, C&G therapies have the potential to be cost-effective even at very high price points. The impact on healthcare budgets will depend on the success rate of pipeline assets and on the extent to which C&G therapies will expand to wider pathologies beyond rare or ultra-rare diseases. Getting pricing and reimbursement models right is important for incentivising research and development investment while not jeopardising the sustainability of healthcare systems. Payers and manufacturers therefore need to acknowledge each other's constraints-limitations in the evidence generation on the manufacturer side, budget considerations on the payer side-and embrace innovative thinking and approaches to ensure timely delivery of therapies to patients. Several experts in health technology assessment and clinical experts have worked together to produce this publication and identify methodological and policy options to improve the assessment of C&G therapies, and make it happen better, faster and sustainably in the coming years.