Qualitative interviews to support development of a patient-reported companion measure to the Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index.

INTRODUCTION: Glucocorticoids (GCs) are associated with multiple toxicities that have substantial impact on patients. We conducted qualitative interviews with patients to identify the toxicities that are most relevant from their perspective, with the goal of creating a patient-reported companion measure to the Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index (GTI), a clinician-facing instrument. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with recent or current GC use participated in concept elicitation interviews. Participants received GC treatment for myasthenia gravis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, vasculitis, or systemic lupus erythematosus. Transcripts were coded following a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants reported more than 100 toxicities they believed to be associated with their GC medications. Common toxicities included weight gain (87%), increased appetite (84%), insomnia/sleep problems (77%), cognitive impairment/brain fog (71%), easy bruising (68%), anxiety (65%), irritability/short temper (65%), and osteoporosis (39%). These toxicities often centered on self-esteem, neuropsychiatric effects, skin toxicities, and musculoskeletal function. They can be categorized into domains such emphasizing neuropsychiatric, metabolic/endocrine, musculoskeletal, and dermatological effects, highlighting aspects of GC toxicity that patients are uniquely positioned to appreciate and report. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that the toxicities associated with GCs are pervasive and diverse, with substantial impact on patients' lives. These data will be used to inform the development of a patient-reported outcome measure assessing GC toxicity. This patient-reported instrument will be designed to complement the clinician-reported GTI, facilitating a more detailed understanding of the nuances of change in GC toxicity.

Assessment of health state utilities associated with adult and pediatric acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD).

INTRODUCTION: Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) type B is a rare genetic disorder leading to enlargement of the spleen and liver, pulmonary dysfunction, and other symptoms. Cost-utility analyses are often conducted to quantify the value of new treatments, and these analyses require health state utilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with varying levels of severity of adult and pediatric ASMD type B. METHODS: Seven adult and seven child health state vignettes describing ASMD were developed based on published literature, clinical trial results, and interviews with clinicians, patients with ASMD, and parents of children with ASMD. The health states were valued in time trade-off interviews with adult general population respondents in the UK. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 202 participants (50.0% female; mean age = 41.3 years). The health state representing ASMD without impairment had the highest mean utility for both the adult and child health states (0.92/0.94), and severe ASMD had the lowest mean utility (0.33/0.45). Every child health state had a significantly greater utility than the corresponding adult health state. Differences between adult/child paired states ranged from 0.02 to 0.13. Subgroup analyses explored the impact of parenting status on valuation of child health states. DISCUSSION: Greater severity of ASMD was associated with lower mean utility. Results have implications for valuation of pediatric health states. The resulting utilities may be useful in cost-utility modeling estimating the value of treatment for ASMD.

Health state utilities associated with weight loss: preferences of people with type 2 diabetes and obesity in Japan.

AIMS: Health state utilities associated with weight change are needed for cost-utility analyses (CUAs) examining the value of treatments for type 2 diabetes and obesity. Previous studies have estimated the utility benefits associated with various amounts of weight reduction in the US and Europe, but preferences for weight change in Asian cultures may differ from these published values. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with reductions in body weight based on preferences of individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity in Japan. METHODS: Health state vignettes represented type 2 diabetes with respondents' own current weight and weight reductions of 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%, 15%, and 20%. Utilities were elicited in time trade-off interviews with a sample of respondents in Japan with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (the cutoff for obesity in Japan). RESULTS: Analyses were conducted with data from 138 respondents (84.8% male; mean age = 58.0 years; mean BMI = 29.4 kg/m2) from all eight regions of Japan. Utility gains gradually increased with rising percentage of weight reductions ranging from 2.5% to 15%. Weight reductions of 2.5% to 15% resulted in utility increases of 0.013 to 0.048. The health state representing a 20% weight reduction yielded a wide range of preferences (mean utility increase of 0.044). Equations are recommended for estimating utility change based on any percentage of weight reduction (up to 20%) in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes and obesity. LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted in a sample with limited representation of patients with BMI >35 kg/m2 (n = 13) and relatively few women (n = 21). CONCLUSION: Results may be used to provide inputs for CUAs examining the value of treatments that are associated with weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity in Japan.

Health State Utilities Associated with False-Positive Cancer Screening Results.

INTRODUCTION: Early cancer detection can significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Novel cancer screening approaches, including multi-cancer early detection tests, have been developed. Cost-utility analyses will be needed to examine their value, and these models require health state utilities. The purpose of this study was to estimate the disutility (i.e., decrease in health state utility) associated with false-positive cancer screening results. METHODS: In composite time trade-off interviews using a 1-year time horizon, UK general population participants valued 10 health state vignettes describing cancer screening with true-negative or false-positive results. Each false-positive vignette described a common diagnostic pathway following a false-positive result suggesting lung, colorectal, breast, or pancreatic cancer. Every pathway ended with a negative result (no cancer detected). The disutility of each false positive was calculated as the difference between the true-negative and each false-positive health state, and because of the 1-year time horizon, each disutility can be interpreted as a quality-adjusted life-year decrement associated with each type of false-positive experience. RESULTS: A total of 203 participants completed interviews (49.8% male; mean age = 42.0 years). The mean (SD) utility for the health state describing a true-negative result was 0.958 (0.065). Utilities for false-positive health states ranged from 0.847 (0.145) to 0.932 (0.059). Disutilities for false positives ranged from - 0.031 to - 0.111 (- 0.041 to - 0.111 for lung cancer; - 0.079 for colorectal cancer; - 0.031 to - 0.067 for breast cancer; - 0.048 to - 0.088 for pancreatic cancer). CONCLUSION: All false-positive results were associated with a disutility. Greater disutility was associated with more invasive follow-up diagnostic procedures, longer duration of uncertainty regarding the eventual diagnosis, and perceived severity of the suspected cancer type. Utility values estimated in this study would be useful for economic modeling examining the value of cancer screening procedures.

Physician Perceptions of Dose Escalation for Type 2 Diabetes Medications in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Medications used to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) often require dose escalation to optimize effectiveness. Physician and patient perceptions of treatment characteristics of T2D medications have previously been examined, but little is known about perceptions of escalation to the optimal dose for each patient. This study examined physicians' perceptions of dose escalation for medications used to treat T2D. METHODS: Data on dose escalation and other factors influencing decision-making for treatment of T2D were collected via an online survey of endocrinologists and primary care physicians in the USA. RESULTS: The sample included 501 physicians (348 primary care physicians and 153 endocrinologists). Dose escalation was not frequently considered by physicians as a primary factor keeping patients' from reaching treatment goals (mentioned as a factor by only 7.6% of the sample) or a barrier to prescribing T2D medication (16.2%). Factors more likely to keep patients from reaching treatment goals included an unhealthy diet (86.6%) and medication adherence (77.4%). The most common reasons that physicians reported for escalating dose levels were the need for better glycemic control (reported by 89.8% of the sample), ability to decrease the total number of medications by increasing the dose of one medication (39.9%), and the need for the patient to lose weight (39.3%). Data reported by primary care physicians and endocrinologists followed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Although common with T2D treatments, escalating the dose of T2D medication was not perceived by physicians to be a significant barrier to attaining treatment goals or prescribing medication. Multiple factors contribute to the decision to escalate the dose of T2D medication.

In early phases of initiating medication treatment for a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is common for physicians to increase from a lower initial dose to a higher end dose to maximize treatment benefit. This process is known as dose escalation. The purpose of this study was to examine physicians' perceptions of dose escalation for medications used to treat T2D. An online survey was designed to identify reasons why physicians in the US may choose to escalate or not escalate a dose of medication for T2D. In addition, physicians were asked about factors that keep patients from reaching treatment goals to identify whether the requirement for dose escalation is perceived to be a common barrier to successful treatment. The sample included 501 physicians (348 primary care, 153 endocrinologists). Dose escalation was not frequently considered to be a primary factor keeping patients' from reaching treatment goals or a barrier to prescribing medication for T2D. Dose escalation decisions are complex, driven by a range of factors such as glycemic control medication tolerability, the patient's body mass index, treatment guidelines, comorbidities, characteristics of the patient's entire treatment regimen, and potential cardiovascular benefits.

Development of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess patient perceptions of simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Treatments for type 2 diabetes vary widely in their complexity. The simplicity or complexity of a treatment regimen may have an impact on patient preference, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop two draft patient-reported outcome instruments focusing on patients' experience with simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: The instruments were developed in a series of steps: gather information to support development of a concept elicitation interview guide (literature review and expert interviews), concept elicitation interviews with patients (N = 30), cognitive interviews with patients (N = 20), and a translatability assessment. RESULTS: In concept elicitation interviews, patients with type 2 diabetes reported a range of treatment attributes that influence their perceptions of treatment simplicity and complexity, such as injection devices, medication preparation, dose timing, dose frequency, ease of taking the correct dose, flexibility of dose schedule, remembering to take medication, and food requirements. Two draft questionnaires were developed based on the literature review, expert interviews, and concept elicitation interviews with patients. Revisions were made to these draft instruments based on qualitative interviews with patients and translatability assessment. DISCUSSION: The qualitative research conducted in this study supports the content validity of two newly developed instruments, the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (Sim-Q) and the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire-Comparison (Sim-Q-Comp), designed to assess the simplicity and complexity of diabetes treatment from the patient's perspective.

Treatments for type 2 diabetes vary widely in their complexity, and previous research suggests that simpler treatments may have benefits for patients, such as better medication adherence and improved glycemic control. Despite the benefits of treatment simplicity, there are limited options for assessing simplicity of treatment from the patient perspective. This study was designed to develop two patient-reported outcome measures that assess simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes. Thirty patients with type 2 diabetes reported a range of treatment attributes that influence their perceptions of treatment simplicity and complexity. These attributes included injection devices, medication preparation, dose timing, dose frequency, ease of taking the correct dose, flexibility of dose schedule, and food requirements. Two questionnaires were developed based on literature review, expert interviews, and patient interviews (one questionnaire for rating a single treatment, and another questionnaire for comparing two treatments). Revisions were made to the draft instruments based on feedback from 20 additional participants and a translatability assessment. The resulting instruments are called the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (Sim-Q) and Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire-Comparison (Sim-Q-Comp). Future research with more patients is needed to further examine the psychometric properties of the questionnaires.

Health state utilities associated with hyperphagia: Data for use in cost-utility models.

Objective: Rare genetic diseases of obesity typically present with hyperphagia, a pathologic desire to consume food. Cost-utility models assessing the value of treatments for these rare diseases will require health state utilities representing hyperphagia. This study estimated utilities associated with various hyperphagia severity levels. Methods: Four health state vignettes were developed using published literature and clinician input to represent various severity levels of hyperphagia. Utilities were estimated for these health states in a time trade-off elicitation study in a UK general population sample. Results: In total, 215 participants completed interviews (39.5% male; mean age 39.1 years). Mean (SD) utilities were 0.98 (0.02) for no hyperphagia, 0.91 (0.10) for mild hyperphagia, 0.70 (0.30) for moderate hyperphagia, and 0.22 (0.59) for severe hyperphagia. Mean (SD) disutilities were -0.08 (0.10) for mild, -0.28 (0.30) for moderate, and -0.77 (0.58) for severe hyperphagia. Conclusions: These data show increasing severity of hyperphagia is associated with decreased utility. Utilities associated with severe hyperphagia are similar to those of other health conditions severely impacting quality of life (QoL). These findings highlight that treatments addressing substantial QoL impacts of severe hyperphagia are needed. Utilities estimated here may be useful in cost-utility models of treatments for rare genetic diseases of obesity.

Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measure to Assess Emotional Impact of Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Patients receiving treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D) may experience an emotional impact associated with treatment-related changes. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure assessing both positive and negative emotional impact of medication treatment for T2D is needed to better understand the patient experience of treatment. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the emotional impact of treatment for T2D and support the development of a questionnaire to assess the emotional impact of treatment for T2D. METHODS: Exit interviews were conducted with patients with T2D participating in the SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3 trials for tirzepatide. The exit interviews included a concept elicitation section focusing on the emotional impact of their study treatment. Results were used to develop two questionnaires that were evaluated in cognitive interviews with patients with T2D. RESULTS: The concept elicitation interviews included 28 patients (mean age 57.6 years; 64.3% female). Most patients reported positive changes in emotions associated with tirzepatide, including increased confidence (n = 23; 82.1%), hope (n = 23; 82.1%), self-esteem (n = 23; 82.1%), relief (n = 22; 78.6%), optimism (n = 21; 75.0%), sense of control (n = 21; 75.0%), happiness (n = 15; 53.6%), and motivation (n = 15; 53.6%), as well as reduced worry/anxiety (n = 19; 67.9%). Negative emotional impact was less commonly reported but included frustration (n = 2; 7.1%), worry/anxiety (n = 1; 3.6%), fear (n = 1; 3.6%), and feeling depressed (n = 1; 3.6%). Two new PROs, the Emotional Impact of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaires (EIDTQ, status and comparison versions), were developed based on these finding. The status version assesses the emotional impact of current treatment, while the comparison version allows for comparison of the current treatment to a previous treatment. The questionnaires were refined on the basis of cognitive interviews with 20 additional patients (mean age 58.3 years; 60.0% female), and results suggest that the final instruments were clear, comprehensible, and relevant to patients. CONCLUSION: The EIDTQ-Status and Comparison measures can be used as a supplement to clinical outcomes, such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight, to provide a broader picture of the patient's emotional experience with medication treatment for T2D.

Medical treatment can have broad effects beyond symptom improvement, including an emotional impact. Emotional impact is subjective and therefore can only be assessed from the patient perspective. However, there is no previously published patient-reported outcome measure assessing both positive and negative emotional impact of medication treatment for type 2 diabetes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research to support the development of two new patient-reported outcome measures designed to assess the emotional impact of type 2 diabetes. Overall, the results add to previous research indicating that treatment for type 2 diabetes can have an emotional impact. The newly developed Emotional Impact of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaires were designed to assess this emotional impact, and current qualitative results support the content validity of these instruments in patients with type 2 diabetes. These instruments can be used as a supplement to clinical outcomes, such as HbA1c and body weight, to provide a broader picture of the patient's experience with medication treatment for type 2 diabetes.

Qualitative interviews to evaluate content validity of the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures are needed to assess the impact of treatments for COVID-19 on symptoms. The ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD) is being used in the ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines-2 (ACTIV-2) platform clinical trial. The purpose of the current study was to conduct qualitative interviews to assess content validity of the ACSD. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with adults who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The ACSD begins with global items, followed by a symptom checklist. Each interview began with concept elicitation focusing on participant experiences with COVID-19. Then, participants completed the ACSD, and cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate the questionnaire. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded following a qualitative content analysis. For the qualitative analysis, a coding dictionary was developed with a list of all potential codes and instructions for how the codes should be applied and combined. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 30 participants (mean age = 39 years; 57% female; 17% Latinx; 17% Black/African American; 40% meeting at least one criterion for classification as high risk of progression to severe COVID-19). Commonly reported symptoms included fatigue (reported by 100% of the sample), body pain/muscle pain/aches (87%), headaches (87%), cough (83%), loss of smell (73%), shortness of breath/difficulty breathing (70%), and chills (70%). The 13 symptoms most commonly reported in this study are included in the ACSD. After completing the ACSD, participants consistently reported that it was clear and easy to complete, and all items were generally interpreted as intended. Based on participants' input, the ACSD was edited slightly after the first 13 interviews, and the revised version was used for the final 17 interviews. Two additional items assessing "brain fog" and dizziness were recommended for addition to the ACSD in future research. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study supports the content validity of the ACSD for assessment of COVID-19 symptoms. Quantitative research with larger samples will be needed to examine the questionnaire's measurement properties.

This study focused on the ACTIV-2 COVID-19 Symptom Diary (ACSD), a questionnaire that assesses symptom severity of COVID-19. The ACSD begins with global items assessing overall symptom severity, followed by a symptom checklist focusing on individual symptoms. Interviews were conducted with 30 adults who had tested positive for COVID-19. The patients reported their experiences with COVID-19, completed the ACSD, and provided their opinions about the ACSD. Based on input from these patients, the ACSD appears to be clear and easy to complete, and it includes the most common and important symptoms of COVID-19. The ACSD was edited for clarity, and "brain fog" and dizziness were recommended additions for future research. This study suggests that the ACSD is a useful questionnaire for assessment of COVID-19 symptoms in clinical studies. Studies like this are important for ensuring that symptoms are measured appropriately and accurately in clinical trials. Future research with larger samples will be needed to further examine the questionnaire.

Approaches to the Assessment of Clinical Benefit of Treatments for Conditions That Have Heterogeneous Symptoms and Impacts: Potential Applications in Rare Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluating the clinical benefit of interventions for conditions with heterogeneous symptom and impact presentations is challenging. The same condition can present differently across and within individuals over time. This occurs frequently in rare diseases. The purpose of this review was to identify (1) assessment approaches used in clinical trials to address heterogeneous manifestations that could be relevant in rare disease research and (2) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling claims that used these approaches. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted examining peer-reviewed publications and FDA-approved labeling claims from January 2002 to July 2020, focusing on claims incorporating clinical outcome assessments. Approaches were then assessed for their potential application in rare diseases. RESULTS: A total of 6 assessment approaches were identified: composite or other multicomponent endpoints, multidomain responder index, most bothersome symptom (MBS), goal attainment scaling, sliding dichotomy, and adequate relief. A total of 59 FDA-approved labeling claims associated with these approaches were identified: composite or other multicomponent endpoints (n=49), MBS (n=9), and adequate relief (n=1). A total of 10 FDA-approved labeling claims, all using multicomponent endpoints, were identified for rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent, MBS, and adequate relief have been included in FDA-approved labeling claims. Multicomponent endpoints, including composite endpoints, were the most frequent way to address heterogeneous manifestations of both common and rare diseases. MBS may be acceptable to regulators, whereas multidomain responder index is unlikely to be. The goal attainment scaling and adequate relief approaches may have potential utility in rare disease trials, assuming the theoretical and statistical challenges inherent in each approach are managed.

Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with the treatment process of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV.

PURPOSE: People living with HIV (PLHIV) have reported challenges associated with daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART), including missed doses, negative psychological impact, and difficulty remaining discreet while at home or traveling. Recently approved long-acting injectable (LAI) ART may help eliminate these concerns. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with oral and LAI treatment for ART. METHODS: Four health state vignettes were developed based on published literature, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. All vignettes included the same description of HIV, but differed in treatment regimens: (A) single daily oral tablet, (B) two daily oral tablets, (C) injections once monthly, and (D) injections every two months. PLHIV in the UK reported their preferences and valued the health states in time trade-off utility interviews. RESULTS: The sample included 201 PLHIV (83.1% male; mean age = 44.9y). The health states frequently selected as most preferable were D (n = 119; 59.2%) and A (n = 75; 37.3%). Utility differences among health states were relatively small, which is typical for treatment process utilities (mean utilities: A, 0.908; B, 0.905; C, 0.900; D, 0.910). Statistically significant differences in utility were found for one vs. two tablets and injections every month vs. every two months (p < 0.001). Participants' quotations highlight the wide range of reasons for treatment process preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Current results indicate that many PLHIV would prefer LAI ART. The reported utilities may be useful in economic modeling comparing oral vs. LAI ART.

Exit Interviews Examining the Patient Experience in Clinical Trials of Tirzepatide for Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Qualitative exit interviews can supplement clinical trial results by providing a rich and detailed picture of the patient's experience, while highlighting the treatment benefits that are meaningful to patients. Exit interviews can be particularly useful for providing insight into newer medications when less is known about the patient's subjective experience of treatment. Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for type 2 diabetes mellitus. The purpose of this study was to conduct exit interviews with patients following participation in two trials to better understand the impact of tirzepatide from the patients' point of view. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with patients with type 2 diabetes treated with tirzepatide soon after completing one of two trials (SURPASS-2, SURPASS-3). Interviews, conducted according to a semi-structured interview guide, were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed following a content analysis approach using ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients (64% female; mean age 57.6 years) completed interviews. All participants (100%) reported at least one treatment benefit. Patients provided descriptions of treatment benefits, including improved glycemic control (reported by 96% of the sample), weight loss (93%), decreased appetite (79%), and increased energy (79%), as indicated by qualitative coding. All participants said these treatment-related changes mattered to them. Patients described improvements in quality of life and daily activities associated with these treatment benefits. Despite adverse events reported by some patients (most commonly nausea, reported by 13 patients), all 28 said they would recommend tirzepatide to others, and 27 said they would be willing to continue treatment. Examples of representative quotations are presented for descriptions of treatment benefits, quality-of-life impact, and adverse events. DISCUSSION: The current results indicate that treatment benefits observed in clinical trials of tirzepatide are important to patients. As demonstrated in quotations from patients, the most enthusiastic descriptions of treatment outcomes focused on the weight loss associated with tirzepatide. The study also highlights the usefulness of exit interviews, which can supplement quantitative trial data by showing how these benefits have a meaningful impact on patients' quality of life.

Health State Utilities for Adverse Events Associated with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy provides effective treatment for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Cost-utility analyses examining and comparing the value of these treatments require health state utilities representing key characteristics to differentiate among therapies. This study estimated utilities for adverse events (AEs) associated with CAR T-cell therapy, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NEs). METHODS: Health state vignettes were drafted based on literature review, AE reports from a trial of CAR T-cell therapy, and clinician input. Health states were valued in time trade-off interviews with general population participants in the UK. The first vignette described relapsed/refractory LBCL treated with CAR T-cell therapy without AEs. Five other vignettes had the same LBCL and treatment description, with the addition of an AE. Disutilities (i.e., utility decrease) associated with these AEs were calculated by subtracting the utility of the health state without AEs from those of the other health states. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 218 participants (50% male; mean age 49 years). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) utility for CAR T-cell therapy without AEs was 0.73 (0.30). Mean (SD) disutilities associated with CRS were -0.01 (0.04) for grade 1, -0.05 (0.09) for grade 2, and -0.23 (0.24) for grade 3/4. Mean (SD) disutilities associated with NEs were -0.04 (0.07) for grade 1/2 and -0.18 (0.22) for grade 3/4. CONCLUSIONS: More severe AEs were associated with greater disutilities. Health state utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-effectiveness models examining the value of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with LBCL.

Health state utilities associated with weight loss in type 2 diabetes and obesity.

INTRODUCTION: Health state utilities associated with weight change are needed as inputs for cost-utility analyses (CUAs) examining the value of treatments for obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although some pharmaceutical treatments currently in development are associated with substantial weight loss, little is known about the utility impact of weight decreases greater than 10%. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with body weight decreases up to 20% based on preferences of individuals with obesity, with and without T2D. METHODS: Health state vignettes were developed to represent respondents' own current weight and weight decreases of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20%. Health state utilities were elicited in time trade-off interviews in two UK locations (Edinburgh and London) with a sample of participants with obesity, with and without T2D. Mean utility increases associated with each amount of weight decrease were calculated. Regression analyses were performed to derive a method for estimating utility change associated with weight decreases. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted with data from 405 individuals with obesity (202 with T2D, 203 without T2D). Utility increases associated with various levels of weight decrease ranged from 0.011 to 0.060 in the subgroup with T2D and 0.015 to 0.077 in the subgroup without T2D. All regression models found that the percentage of weight decrease was a highly significant predictor of change in utility (p < .0001). The relationship between weight change and utility change did not appear to be linear. Equations are recommended for estimating utility change based on the natural logarithm of percentage of weight decrease. DISCUSSION: Results of this study may be used to provide inputs for CUAs examining and comparing the value of treatments that are associated with substantial amounts of weight loss in patients with obesity, with or without T2D.

A Review of Interventional Trials in Youth-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: Challenges and Opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades, the dramatic rise of obesity among youth in the US has been accompanied by a rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in this population. This alarming trend underscores the importance of conducting trials to evaluate new therapies in children with T2D. METHODS: A targeted review of peer-reviewed literature and trials registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov was conducted in January 2021 to identify pharmaceutical interventional studies in youth with T2D. Information regarding enrollment data, study design elements, subjects' baseline characteristics, and key treatment outcomes was documented. RESULTS: Among the 16 clinical studies included in this review, only five appeared to meet projected enrollment targets in < 4 years. Although three other studies met recruitment targets, two took approximately 5 years to complete and the third took nearly 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite legislation requiring evaluation of pharmaceutical treatments in pediatric populations, surprisingly few interventional studies have been conducted in children with T2D. This review highlights that recruitment challenges may be impeding the conduct and completion of interventional studies. Consequently, few pharmaceutical treatments have been proven to be effective and approved for children with T2D. Metformin and liraglutide remain the only non-insulin treatments formally approved in the US for use in this population. More clinical research is needed to support regulatory decision-making as well as treatment decisions for children with T2D in clinical settings. Sponsors and investigators will need to implement strategies for improving trial enrollment as well as work with regulatory agencies to develop novel study designs that may require fewer patients.

Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments.

INTRODUCTION: The administration of medications targeting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) has evolved over time. As injection delivery systems continue to evolve, it is necessary to understand patients' perceptions of currently available treatments. The objective of this study was to examine the patient perspective of injectable treatment for T2D and identify characteristics of these treatments that are most important to patients. METHODS: Data were collected via an online survey study with a sample of individuals in the UK and US who were treated for T2D with injectable medication. The survey was designed to elicit perceptions of the treatment process for injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and insulin. RESULTS: The sample included 504 participants (251 UK, 253 US). Approximately half (50.4%) were treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and half (49.6%) were treated with insulin. Respondents were presented with a list of 17 characteristics of injectable medication and asked to indicate which were most important to them. Respondents most frequently selected confidence in administering the correct dose (n = 300, 59.5%); ease of selecting the correct dose (n = 268, 53.2%); overall ease of using the injection device (n = 239, 47.4%); frequency of injections (n = 223, 44.2%); and ease of carrying the device when necessary to inject away from home (n = 190, 37.7%). Characteristics least frequently cited as important included dose escalation (n = 79, 15.7%); handling the needle (n = 74, 14.7%); connectivity to an electronic device (n = 70, 13.9%); and the time required to prepare and inject each dose (n = 62, 12.3%). CONCLUSION: Results of this survey suggest that patients prioritize some attributes of injectable treatments over others. These findings may have implications for clinical practice and development of injection devices.

Vignette-Based Utilities: Usefulness, Limitations, and Methodological Recommendations.

Health technology assessment agencies often prefer that utilities used to calculate quality-adjusted life years in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are derived using standardized methods, such as generic preference-based measures completed by patients in clinical trials. However, there are situations when no standardized approach is feasible or appropriate for a specific medical condition or treatment that must be represented in a CUA. When this occurs, vignette-based methods are often used to estimate utilities. A vignette (sometimes called a "scenario," "health state description," "health state vignette," or "health state") is a description of a health state that is valued in a preference elicitation task to obtain a utility estimate. This method is sometimes the only feasible way to estimate utilities representing a concept that is important for a CUA. Consequently, vignette-based studies continue to be conducted and published, with the resulting utilities used in economic models to inform decision making about healthcare resource allocation. Despite the potential impact of vignette-based utilities on medical decision making, there is no published guidance or review of this methodology. This article provides recommendations for researchers, health technology assessment reviewers, and policymakers who may be deciding whether to use vignette-based methods, designing a vignette study, using vignette-based utilities in a CUA, or evaluating a CUA that includes vignette-based utilities. Recommendations are provided on: (A) when to use vignette-based utilities, (B) methods for developing vignettes, (C) valuing vignettes, (D) use of vignette-based utilities in models, and (E) limitations of vignette methods.

Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: Previous research suggests that treatment process can have an influence on patient preference and health state utilities. This study examined preferences and estimated utilities for treatment processes of two daily oral treatment regimens and two weekly injectable regimens for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Participants with T2D in the UK reported preferences and valued four health state vignettes in time trade-off utility interviews. The vignettes had identical descriptions of T2D but differed in treatment process: (1) daily simple oral treatment (tablets without administration requirements), (2) daily oral semaglutide (with administration requirements per product label), (3) weekly dulaglutide injection, (4) weekly semaglutide injection. RESULTS: Interviews were completed by 201 participants (52.7% male; mean age = 58.7). Preferences between treatment processes varied widely. Mean utilities were 0.890 for simple oral, 0.880 for oral semaglutide, 0.878 for dulaglutide injection, and 0.859 for semaglutide injection (with higher scores indicating greater preference). All pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.01), except the comparison between oral semaglutide and the dulaglutide injection (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that routes of administration cannot be compared using only the simplest descriptions (e.g., oral versus injectable). Dose frequency and specific details of the treatment process administration had an impact on patient preference and health state utilities. The utilities estimated in this study may be useful in cost-utility models comparing these treatments for T2D. Results also suggest that it may be helpful to consider patient preferences for treatment process when selecting medications for patients in clinical settings.

Patients' preferences for delaying metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Combining health state and treatment valuation.

PURPOSE: Men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) experience disease progression at different rates. The purpose of this study was to quantify the strength of patient preferences for delaying prostate cancer progression utilizing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and valuing 3 health states in the continuum of CRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with CRPC, recruited from US patient panels, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. The survey consisted of vignette-based time trade-off and a DCE designed to quantify patients' willingness to pay to delay metastatic CRPC. Three health states were presented: (1) living with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) (2) living with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) before chemotherapy, and (3) living with mCRPC either on or after chemotherapy. The DCE consisted of 15 hypothetical choices with attributes characterizing CRPC (pain, fatigue, out of pocket cost, dosing, and time until cancer metastasizes). Patients' willingness to pay for changes in each attribute were derived. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients with CRPC were surveyed (mean age: 64.2 years; 74% nmCRPC). Patients valued the nmCRPC health state (0.865) significantly higher than mCRPC before chemotherapy (0.743) or mCRPC on or after chemotherapy (0.476), both P < 0.001. In the DCE, patient treatment valuation was most affected by increasing the number of months until cancer metastasized; patients were willing to pay an additional $682 per month to delay time to metastases from 6 to 24 months (95% Confidence Interval: $387-$977) and additional $1,041 per month to delay time to metastasis to 48 months (95% Confidence Interval: $591-$1,490). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated men with CRPC place significant value on delaying metastases. This study represents the first time 2 stated preference methods, time trade-off and DCE, were used together to understand patients' preferences and valuation of health states in CRPC.

Validity and analysis of the Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ).

INTRODUCTION: The Diabetes Injection Device Preference Questionnaire (DID-PQ) was designed to assess patient preference between two non-insulin injection devices. In a recent crossover study, people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) completed the DID-PQ after performing mock injections with two non-insulin injection devices. The purpose of the current analysis was to use these data to assess construct validity of the DID-PQ and demonstrate one way to test whether there is a significant preference for one injection device over another. METHODS: Data were from an open-label, multicenter, randomized, crossover study assessing preference between the dulaglutide and semaglutide injection pens. In addition to the 10-item DID-PQ, people with T2D completed a global item assessing overall preference. DID-PQ responses were compared to the global preference item (percent agreement, Gwet's AC1, prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted Kappa [PABAK]). For each item of the DID-PQ, a two-sided binomial test assessed whether the difference in preference was statistically significant. RESULTS: The sample included 310 participants (48.4% female; mean age = 60.0). The DID-PQ had minimal missing data. There was strong concordance (percent agreement > 78%) between the global preference item and all DID-PQ items except item 6, which assesses preference related to needle size (59.7%). The Gwet AC1 and PABAK statistics also indicated strong agreement between the global preference item and all DID-PQ items except item 6. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001) in preference on every DID-PQ item, with more participants preferring the dulaglutide device. DISCUSSION: Patient preference has been recommended as a "major factor driving the choice of medication" in a consensus report by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Current findings suggest that the DID-PQ may be a useful tool for providing insight into preferences of people with T2D using non-insulin injectable medication.