Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors offered dyslipidemia patients an alternative to statins for lipid-lowering treatment. Understanding patient and physician preferences for lipid-lowering drugs may promote shared decision-making and improve treatment outcomes. METHODS: This study utilized an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess the relative importance (RI) of six attributes related to lipid-lowering drugs, including frequency of administration, mode of administration, reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, risk of myopathy, risk of liver damage, and out-of-pocket monthly cost. Respondents were recruited from dyslipidemia patients and cardiovascular physicians in China. A mixed logit model and latent class analysis were employed to estimate the preference coefficient, marginal willingness to pay (mWTP), and RI of attributes. Ethical approval has been obtained for this study. RESULTS: A total of 708 patients and 507 physicians participated in the survey. Patients prioritized the 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 23.6%) with 'mode of administration' (RI = 19.2%) and 'frequency of administration' (RI = 18.8%) following closely. Contrarily, physicians prioritized the 'reduction of LDL-C level' (RI = 33.5%), followed by 'risk of liver damage' (RI = 26.0%) and 'risk of myopathy' (RI = 16.1%). Patients placed a higher value on 'frequency of administration' (p < .001) and 'mode of administration' (p < .001) compared to physicians, while physicians valued 'reduction of LDL-C level' (p < .001) and 'risk of myopathy' (p = .012) more than patients. Physicians exhibited higher mWTP than patients for all attributes except frequency and mode of administration. The LCA revealed three distinct patient classes: focus on oral administration, focus on hepatic safety and frequency and focus on hepatic safety and cost. Likewise, three physician classes were identified: frequency-insensitive, efficacy-focused and safety-focused. CONCLUSIONS: The preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy differed between patients and physicians in China. Physicians should take into account patients' preferences and provide personalized treatment when they formulate lipid-lowering treatment plans. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients participated in the questionnaire design process. They engaged in a focus group discussion to determine attributes and levels and also participated in a pilot survey to assess the comprehensibility of the questionnaires. Additionally, patients were involved in the DCE survey to express their preferences. The findings of patient preference for lipid-lowering drug therapy will promote shared decision-making and optimize the treatment regimen.

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes. Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback. Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control. Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales). Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations. Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide. Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10-35 days later, compared with usual care. Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events. Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure. Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location. Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation. Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks. Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework. Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.46, 95% confidence interval -2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval -0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (-£163, 95% confidence interval -£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming. Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients' quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment. Study registration: This study is registered as IRAS250225 and ISRCTN17299295. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 17. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Depression is common, can be disabling and costs the nation billions. The National Health Service recommends general practitioners who treat people with depression use symptom questionnaires to help assess whether those people are getting better over time. A symptom questionnaire is one type of patient-reported outcome measure. Patient-reported outcome measures appear to benefit people having therapy and mental health care, but this approach has not been tested thoroughly in general practice. Most people with depression are treated in general practice, so it is important to test patient-reported outcome measures there, too. In this study, we tested whether using a patient-reported outcome measure helps people with depression get better more quickly. The study was a 'randomised controlled trial' in general practices, split into two groups. In one group, people with depression completed the Patient Health Questionnaire, or 'PHQ-9', patient-reported outcome measure, which measures nine symptoms of depression. In the other group, people with depression were treated as usual without the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We fed the results of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 back to the people with depression themselves to show them how severe their depression was and asked them to discuss the results with the practitioners looking after them. We found no differences between the patient-reported outcome measure group and the control group in their level of depression; their work or social life; their satisfaction with care from their practice; or their use of medicines, therapy or specialist care for depression. However, we did find that their quality of life was improved at 6 months, and the costs of the National Health Service services they used were lower. Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 can improve patients' quality of life, perhaps by making them more aware of improvement in their depression symptoms, and less anxious as a result. Future research should test using a patient-reported outcome measure that includes anxiety and processing the answers through a computer to give practitioners clearer advice on possible changes to treatment for depression.

Depression follow-up monitoring with the PHQ-9: an open cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcome monitoring of depression treatment is recommended but there is a lack of evidence on patient benefit in primary care. AIM: To test monitoring depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) with patient feedback. DESIGN AND SETTING: An open cluster-randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 141 group practices. METHOD: Adults with new depressive episodes were recruited through record searches and opportunistically. The exclusion criteria were as follows: dementia; psychosis; substance misuse; and suicide risk. The PHQ-9 was administered soon after diagnosis, and 10-35 days later. The primary outcome was the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes were as follows: BDI-II at 26 weeks; Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality of life at 12 and 26 weeks; antidepressant treatment; mental health and social service contacts; adverse events, and Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) over 26 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients were recruited to the intervention arm and 227 to the controls. At 12 weeks, 254 (84.1%) and 199 (87.7%) were followed-up, respectively. Only 40.9% of patients in the intervention had a GP follow-up PHQ-9 recorded. There was no significant difference in BDI-II score at 12 weeks (mean difference -0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.16 to 1.26; adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering by practice). EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life scores were higher in the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013 to 0.093. A clinically significant difference in depression at 26 weeks could not be ruled out. No significant differences were found in social functioning, adverse events, or satisfaction. In a per-protocol analysis, antidepressant use and mental health contacts were significantly greater in patients in the intervention arm with a recorded follow-up PHQ-9 (P = 0.025 and P = 0.010, respectively). CONCLUSION: No evidence was found of improved depression outcome at 12 weeks from monitoring. The findings of possible benefits over 26 weeks warrant replication, investigating possible mechanisms, preferably with automated delivery of monitoring and more instructive feedback.

Internet and Telephone Support for Discontinuing Long-Term Antidepressants: The REDUCE Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: There is significant concern regarding increasing long-term antidepressant treatment for depression beyond an evidence-based duration. Objective: To determine whether adding internet and telephone support to a family practitioner review to consider discontinuing long-term antidepressant treatment is safe and more effective than a practitioner review alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, 131 UK family practices were randomized between December 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022, with remote computerized allocation and 12 months of follow-up. Participants and researchers were aware of allocation, but analysis was blind. Participants were adults who were receiving antidepressants for more than 1 year for a first episode of depression or more than 2 years for recurrent depression who were currently well enough to consider discontinuation and wished to do so and who were at low risk of relapse. Of 6725 patients mailed invitations, 330 (4.9%) were eligible and consented. Interventions: Internet and telephone self-management support, codesigned and coproduced with patients and practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary (safety) outcome was depression at 6 months (prespecified complete-case analysis), testing for noninferiority of the intervention to under 2 points on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes (testing for superiority) were antidepressant discontinuation, anxiety, quality of life, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms, mental well-being, enablement, satisfaction, use of health care services, and adverse events. Analyses for the main outcomes were performed on a complete-case basis, and multiple imputation sensitivity analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Of 330 participants recruited (325 eligible for inclusion; 178 in intervention practices and 147 in control practices; mean [SD] age at baseline, 54.0 [14.9] years; 223 women [68.6%]), 276 (83.6%) were followed up at 6 months, and 240 (72.7%) at 12 months. The intervention proved noninferior; mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores at 6 months were slightly lower in the intervention arm than in the control arm in the complete-case analysis (4.0 [4.3] vs 5.0 [4.7]; adjusted difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03) but not significantly different in an intention-to-treat multiple imputation sensitivity analysis (adjusted difference, -0.9 (95% CI, -1.9 to 0.1; P = .08). By 6 months, antidepressants had been discontinued by 66 of 145 intervention arm participants (45.5%) who provided discontinuation data and 54 of 129 control arm participants (41.9%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-1.99; P = .96). In the intervention arm, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms were less severe, and mental well-being was better compared with the control arm; differences were small but significant. There were no significant differences in the other outcomes; 28 of 179 intervention arm participants (15.6%) and 22 of 151 control arm participants (14.6%) experienced adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of adding internet and telephone support to a practitioner review for possible antidepressant discontinuation, depression was slightly better with support, but the rate of discontinuation of antidepressants did not significantly increase. Improvements in antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and mental well-being were also small. There were no significant harms. Family practitioner review for possible discontinuation of antidepressants appeared safe and effective for more than 40% of patients willing and well enough to discontinue. Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry Identifiers: ISRCTN15036829 (internal pilot trial) and ISRCTN12417565 (main trial).

A randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention (Renewed) to support symptom management, wellbeing and quality of life in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors. DESIGN: Pragmatic parallel open randomised trial. SETTING: UK general practices. METHODS: People having finished primary treatment (<= 10 years previously) for colo-rectal, breast or prostate cancers, with European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer QLQ-C30 score <85, were randomised by online software to: 1)detailed 'generic' digital NHS support ('LiveWell';n=906), 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention ('Renewed';n=903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, distress, or 3) 'Renewed-with-support' (n=903): 'Renewed' with additional brief email and telephone support. RESULTS: Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice: at 6 months (primary time point: n's respectively 806;749;705) all groups improved, with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both intervention groups. By 12 months there were: small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed-with-support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% CIs 0.33-2.51); both groups improved global health (12 months: renewed: 3.06, 1.39-4.74; renewed-with-support: 2.78, 1.08-4.48), dyspnoea, constipation, and enablement, and lower NHS costs (generic advice £265: in comparison respectively £141 (153-128) and £77 (90-65) lower); and for Renewed-with-support improvement in several other symptom subscales. No harms were identified. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors quality of life improved with detailed generic online support. Robustly developed bespoke digital support provides limited additional short term benefit, but additional longer term improvement in global health enablement and symptom management, with substantially lower NHS costs.