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.

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.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

AIM: When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset. RESULTS: There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

Health state utilities associated with attributes of migraine preventive treatments based on patient and general population preferences.

PURPOSE: While previous studies have estimated health state utilities associated with migraine severity and frequency, migraine treatments vary in other ways that may have an impact on patients' quality of life, preference, and utility. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with migraine treatment attributes including route of administration and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). METHODS: In time trade-off interviews, migraine patients and general population participants in the UK valued health state vignettes drafted based on literature, medication labels, and clinician interviews. All respondents valued migraine health states varying in route of administration. Each participant also valued eight health states (randomly selected from a total of 15) that added the description of an AE to a migraine health state. RESULTS: A total of 400 participants completed interviews (200 general population [49.0% female; mean age = 43.6 years]; 200 migraine patients [74.5% female; mean age = 45.8 years]). In the general population sample, mean utilities of health states without aura were 0.79 with daily oral medication, 0.78 with one injection per month, and 0.72 with 31-39 injections once every 3 months. The greatest disutilities (i.e., decreases in utility) were for AEs associated with oral medications (e.g., - 0.060 [fatigue] and - 0.098 [brain fog]). Differences among health states followed the same pattern in the patient sample as in the general population sample. CONCLUSIONS: Utilities estimated from the general population sample may be used to represent route of administration and AEs in cost-utility models. Results from the patient sample indicate that these treatment characteristics have an impact on patient preference.

Health State Utilities Associated with Glucose Monitoring Devices.

BACKGROUND: Glucose monitoring is important for patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Conventional glucose monitoring requires a blood sample, typically obtained by pricking the finger. A new sensor-based system called "flash glucose monitoring" monitors glucose levels with a sensor worn on the arm, without requiring blood samples. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the utility difference between these two glucose monitoring approaches for use in cost-utility models. METHODS: In time trade-off interviews, general population participants in the United Kingdom (London and Edinburgh) valued health states that were drafted and refined on the basis of literature, clinician input, and a pilot study. The health states had identical descriptions of diabetes and insulin treatment, differing only in glucose monitoring approach. RESULTS: A total of 209 participants completed the interviews (51.7% women; mean age = 42.1 years). Mean utilities were 0.851 ± 0.140 for conventional monitoring and 0.882 ± 0.121 for flash monitoring (significant difference between the mean utilities; t = 8.3; P < 0.0001). Of the 209 participants, 78 (37.3%) had a higher utility for flash monitoring, 2 (1.0%) had a higher utility for conventional monitoring, and 129 (61.7%) had the same utility for both health states. CONCLUSIONS: The flash glucose monitoring system was associated with a significantly greater utility than the conventional monitoring system. This difference may be useful in cost-utility models comparing the value of glucose monitoring devices for patients with diabetes. This study adds to the literature on treatment process utilities, suggesting that time trade-off methods may be used to quantify preferences among medical devices.

Challenges of Developing an Observable Parent-Reported Measure: A Qualitative Study of Functional Impact of ADHD in Children.

BACKGROUND: Informant-reported outcome measures, usually completed by parents, are often administered in pediatric clinical trials with the intention of collecting data to support claims in a medical product label. Recently, there has been an emphasis on limiting these measures to observable content, as recommended in the US Food and Drug Administration guidance on patient-reported outcomes. This qualitative study explores the concept of observability using the example of childhood attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with children (aged 6-12 years) diagnosed with ADHD and parents of children with ADHD to identify concepts for a potential parent-reported measure of functional impact of childhood ADHD. The observability of each concept was considered. RESULTS: Of the 30 parents (90% females; mean age = 42.0 years), 24 had a child who was also interviewed (87.5% males; mean age = 9.6 years). Areas of functional impact reported by parents and/or children included the following: 1) functioning within the home/family, 2) academic performance, 3) school behavior, 4) social functioning, 5) emotional functioning, and 6) decreased self-efficacy. Parents cited many examples of direct observation at home, but opportunities for observation of some important areas of impact (e.g., school behavior and peer relationships) were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Findings illustrate the substantial functional impairment associated with childhood ADHD while highlighting the challenges of developing informant-reported outcome measures limited to observable content. Because ADHD has an impact on children's functioning in a wide range of contexts, a parent-report measure that includes only observable content may fail to capture important aspects of functional impairment. Approaches for addressing this observability challenge are discussed.

Risks associated with antiretroviral treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): qualitative analysis of social media data and health state utility valuation.

PURPOSE: Despite benefits of antiretroviral therapies (ART), people with HIV infection have increased risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and low bone mineral density. Some ARTs increase risk of these events. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' perspectives of these risks and estimate health state utilities associated with these risks for use in cost-utility models. METHODS: Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to examine messages posted to the POZ/AIDSmeds Internet community forums, focusing on bone, kidney, and cardiovascular side effects and risks of HIV/AIDS medications. Then, health state vignettes were drafted based on this qualitative analysis, literature review, and clinician interviews. The health states (representing HIV, plus treatment-related risks) were valued in time trade-off interviews with general population participants in the UK. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of the Internet forums documented patient concerns about ART risks, as well as treatment decisions made because of these risks. A total of 208 participants completed utility interviews (51.4% female; mean age 44.6 years). The mean utility of the HIV health state (virologically suppressed, treated with ART) was 0.86. Adding a description of risk resulted in statistically significant disutility (i.e., utility decreases): renal risk (disutility = -0.02), bone risk (-0.03), and myocardial infarction risk (-0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patient concerns and treatment decisions were documented via qualitative analysis of Internet forum discussions, and the impact of these concerns was quantified in terms of health state utilities. The resulting disutilities may be useful for differentiating among ARTs in economic modeling of treatment for patients with HIV.

Health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are often recommended as part of combination therapy for type 2 diabetes when oral medication does not result in sufficient glycemic control. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are available as weekly injections. These medications vary in their injection delivery systems, and these differences could impact quality of life and treatment preference. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with attributes of injection delivery systems for weekly GLP-1 therapies. METHODS: Participants with type 2 diabetes in the UK valued health states in time trade-off interviews. The health states (drafted based on literature, device instructions for use, and clinician interviews) had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process. One health state described oral treatment, while six others described oral treatment plus a weekly injection. The injection health states varied in three aspects of the treatment administration process: requirements for reconstituting the medication (i.e., mixing the medication prior to the injection), waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling. Every participant valued all seven health states. RESULTS: A total of 209 participants completed interviews (57.4% male; mean age = 60.4y). The mean utility of the oral treatment health state was 0.89. All injection health states had significantly (p < 0.01) lower utilities ranging from 0.86 to 0.88. Differences among health state utilities suggest that each administration requirement had a small but measureable disutility: -0.004 (reconstitution), -0.004 (needle handling), -0.010 (reconstitution, needle handling), and -0.020 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest it is feasible to use the TTO method to quantify preferences among injection treatment processes. It may be useful to incorporate these utility differences into cost-utility models comparing weekly injectable treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes.

A qualitative examination of the content validity of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D is frequently used to derive utilities for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite widely available quantitative psychometric data on the EQ-5D, little is known about content validity in this population. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study was to examine content validity of the EQ-5D in patients with T2D. METHODS: Patients with T2D in the UK completed concept elicitation interviews, followed by administration of the EQ-5D-5L and cognitive interviewing focused on the instrument's relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: A total of 25 participants completed interviews (52.0 % male; mean age = 53.5 years). Approximately half (52 %) reported that the EQ-5D-5L was relevant to their experience with T2D. When asked if each individual item was relevant to their experience with T2D, responses varied widely (24.0 % said the self-care item was relevant; 68.0 % said the anxiety/depression item was relevant). Participants frequently said items were not relevant to themselves, but could be relevant to patients with more severe diabetes. Most participants (92.0 %) reported that T2D and/or its treatment/monitoring requirements had an impact on their quality of life that was not captured by the EQ-5D-5L. Common missing concepts included food awareness/restriction (n = 13, 52.0 %); activities (n = 11, 44.0 %); emotional functioning other than depression/anxiety (n = 8, 32.0 %); and social/relationship functioning (n = 8, 32.0 %). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight strengths and potential limitations of the EQ-5D-5L, including missing content that could be important for some patients with T2D. Suggestions for addressing limitations are provided.

Health state utilities associated with major clinical events in the context of secondary hyperparathyroidism and chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) who require dialysis are at increased risk for cardiovascular events and bone fractures. To assist in economic evaluations, this study aimed to estimate the disutility of these events beyond the impact of CKD and SHPT. METHODS: A basic one-year health state was developed describing CKD and SHPT requiring dialysis. Further health states added acute events (cardiovascular events, fractures, and surgical procedures) or chronic post-event effects. Acute health states described a year including an event, and chronic health states described a year subsequent to an event. General population participants in Canada completed time trade-off interviews from which utilities were derived. Pairwise comparisons were made between the basic state and event, and between comparable health states. RESULTS: A total of 199 participants (54.8% female; mean age = 46.3 years) completed interviews. Each health state had ≥130 valuations. The mean (SD) utility of the basic health state was 0.60 (0.34). For acute events, mean utility differences versus the basic state were: myocardial infarction, -0.06; unstable angina, -0.05; peripheral vascular disease (PVD) with amputation, -0.33; PVD without amputation, -0.11; heart failure, -0.14; stroke, -0.30; hip fracture, -0.14; arm fracture, -0.04; parathyroidectomy, +0.02; kidney transplant, +0.06. Disutilities for chronic health states were: stable angina, -0.09; stroke, -0.27; PVD with amputation, -0.30; PVD without amputation, -0.12; heart failure, -0.14. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular events and fractures were associated with lower utility scores, suggesting a perceived decrease in quality of life beyond the impact of CKD and SHPT.

Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility models are frequently used to compare treatments intended to prevent or delay the onset of cardiovascular events. Most published utilities represent post-event health states without incorporating the disutility of the event or reporting the time between the event and utility assessment. Therefore, this study estimated health state utilities representing cardiovascular conditions while distinguishing between acute impact including the cardiovascular event and the chronic post-event impact. METHODS: Health states were drafted and refined based on literature review, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. Three cardiovascular conditions were described: stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure. One-year acute health states represented the event and its immediate impact, and post-event health states represented chronic impact. UK general population respondents valued the health states in time trade-off tasks with time horizons of one year for acute states and ten years for chronic states. RESULTS: A total of 200 participants completed interviews (55% female; mean age = 46.6 y). Among acute health states, stroke had the lowest utility (0.33), followed by heart failure (0.60) and ACS (0.67). Utility scores for chronic health states followed the same pattern: stroke (0.52), heart failure (0.57), and ACS (0.82). For stroke and ACS, acute utilities were significantly lower than chronic post-event utilities (difference = 0.20 and 0.15, respectively; both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results add to previously published utilities for cardiovascular events by distinguishing between chronic post-event health states and acute health states that include the event and its immediate impact. Findings suggest that acute versus chronic impact should be considered when selecting scores for use in cost-utility models. Thus, the current utilities provide a unique option that may be used to represent the acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular conditions in economic models comparing treatments that may delay or prevent the onset of cardiovascular events.

Impact of caregiver and parenting status on time trade-off and standard gamble utility scores for health state descriptions.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of caregiver status on time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) health state utility scores. Respondents were categorized as caregivers if they reported that either children or adults depended on them for care. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data from three studies in which general population samples rated health state descriptions. Study 1: UK; four osteoarthritis health states. Study 2: UK; three adult ADHD health states. Study 3: US; 16 schizophrenia health states. All three studies included time trade-off assessment. Study 1 also included standard gamble. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine willingness to trade in TTO or gamble in SG. Utilities for caregivers and non-caregivers were compared using t-tests and ANCOVA models. RESULTS: There were 364 respondents including 106 caregivers (n = 30, 47, and 29 in Studies 1, 2, and 3) and 258 non-caregivers. Most caregivers were parents of dependent children (78.3%). Compared to non-caregivers, caregivers had more responses at the ceiling (i.e., utility = 0.95), indicating less willingness to trade time or gamble. All utilities were higher for caregivers than non-caregivers (mean utility difference between groups: 0.07 to 0.16 in Study 1 TTO; 0.03 to 0.17 in Study 1 SG; 0.06 to 0.10 in Study 2 TTO; 0.11 to 0.22 in Study 3 TTO). These differences were statistically significant for at least two health states in each study (p < 0.05). Results of sensitivity analyses with two caregiver subgroups (parents of dependent children and parents of any child regardless of whether the child was still dependent) followed the same pattern as results of the primary analysis. The parent subgroups were generally less willing to trade time or gamble (i.e., resulting in higher utility scores) than comparison groups of non-parents. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that caregiver status, including being a parent, influences responses in time trade-off health state valuation. Caregivers (i.e., predominantly parents) were less willing than non-caregivers to trade time, resulting in higher utility scores. This pattern was consistent across multiple health states in three studies. Standard gamble results followed similar patterns, but with less consistent differences between groups. It may be useful to consider parenting/caregiving status when collecting, interpreting, or using utility data because this demographic variable could influence results.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for children and adolescents are often included in clinical trials with the intention of collecting data to support claims in a medical product label. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current task force report is to recommend good practices for pediatric PRO research that is conducted to inform regulatory decision making and support claims made in medical product labeling. The recommendations are based on the consensus of an interdisciplinary group of researchers who were assembled for a task force associated with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). In those areas in which supporting evidence is limited or in which general principles may not apply to every situation, this task force report identifies factors to consider when making decisions about the design and use of pediatric PRO instruments, while highlighting issues that require further research. GOOD RESEARCH PRACTICES: Five good research practices are discussed: 1) Consider developmental differences and determine age-based criteria for PRO administration: Four age groups are discussed on the basis of previous research (<5 years old, 5-7 years, 8-11 years, and 12-18 years). These age groups are recommended as a starting point when making decisions, but they will not fit all PRO instruments or the developmental stage of every child. Specific age ranges should be determined individually for each population and PRO instrument. 2) Establish content validity of pediatric PRO instruments: This section discusses the advantages of using children as content experts, as well as strategies for concept elicitation and cognitive interviews with children. 3) Determine whether an informant-reported outcome instrument is necessary: The distinction between two types of informant-reported measures (proxy vs. observational) is discussed, and recommendations are provided. 4) Ensure that the instrument is designed and formatted appropriately for the target age group. Factors to consider include health-related vocabulary, reading level, response scales, recall period, length of instrument, pictorial representations, formatting details, administration approaches, and electronic data collection (ePRO). 5) Consider cross-cultural issues. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to provide methodological guidance for future studies, especially for studies involving young children and parents' observational reports. As PRO data are increasingly used to support pediatric labeling claims, there will be more information regarding the standards by which these instruments will be judged. The use of PRO instruments in clinical trials and regulatory submissions will help ensure that children's experience of disease and treatment are accurately represented and considered in regulatory decisions.