Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension. METHODS: We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module. RESULTS: Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (P < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency. CONCLUSIONS: In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding. HIGHLIGHTS: When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes.We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy.Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment.

Quantifying Benefit-Risk Preferences for Heart Failure Devices: A Stated-Preference Study.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory and clinical decisions involving health technologies require judgements about relative importance of their expected benefits and risks. We sought to quantify heart-failure patients' acceptance of therapeutic risks in exchange for improved effectiveness with implantable devices. METHODS: Individuals with heart failure recruited from a national web panel or academic medical center completed a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey in which they were randomized to one of 40 blocks of 8 experimentally controlled choice questions comprised of 2 device scenarios and a no-device scenario. Device scenarios offered an additional year of physical functioning equivalent to New York Heart Association class III or a year with improved (ie, class II) symptoms, or both, with 30-day mortality risks ranging from 0% to 15%, in-hospital complication risks ranging from 0% to 40%, and a remote adjustment device feature. Logit-based regression models fit participants' choices as a function of health outcomes, risks and remote adjustment. RESULTS: Latent-class analysis of 613 participants (mean age, 65; 49% female) revealed that two-thirds were best represented by a pro-device, more risk-tolerant class, accepting up to 9% (95% CI, 7%-11%) absolute risk of device-associated mortality for a one-year gain in improved functioning (New York Heart Association class II). Approximately 20% were best represented by a less risk-tolerant class, accepting a maximum device-associated mortality risk of 3% (95% CI, 1%-4%) for the same benefit. The remaining class had strong antidevice preferences, thus maximum-acceptable risk was not calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative evidence on benefit-risk tradeoffs for implantable heart-failure device profiles may facilitate incorporating patients' views during product development, regulatory decision-making, and clinical practice.

Measuring Patient Preferences at the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Reflections and Projections.

OBJECTIVES: Patient preference information (PPI) is a way to incorporate the patient voice in the evaluation of medical devices. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has been working to encourage the voluntary inclusion of PPI throughout the medical device lifecycle for nearly a decade. This article reflects CDRH's efforts to encourage collection of PPI and offers perspectives on the future of PPI in the evaluation of medical devices. METHODS: CDRH regulatory guidance, public meetings, and collaborations relating to PPI were explored. RESULTS: Since 2012 when CDRH issued guidance on how PPI can be used as scientific evidence in the benefit-risk regulatory submission, CDRH has issued 5 subsequent guidance documents expanding on the use of PPI in medical device evaluations. CDRH remains committed to advancing the science and application of PPI in the medical device ecosystem through many collaborations with professional organizations, patient advocacy groups, and academic institutions. By hosting and actively participating in multiple scientific and regulatory public meetings and conferences, CDRH fosters a continuous learning environment where the experience of using PPI in regulatory submissions can be shared. A September 2020 meeting cosponsored by FDA and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) discussed the state of PPI in regulatory applications and beyond. CONCLUSION: This article describes these pivotal events that have helped to increase the use of PPI in medical device evaluation as well as discusses future applications of PPI.

Patient Preferences for Preventive Migraine Treatments: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To understand treatment preferences of people with migraine and the relative importance of improvements in efficacy and avoiding adverse events (AEs), such as cognition problems or weight gain. BACKGROUND: Current preventive migraine medicines are associated with poor adherence and tolerability. There is an unmet need for effective migraine-specific preventive treatments with fewer AEs. METHODS: In a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey, respondents who self-reported having ≥6 migraine days/month were offered choices between pairs of hypothetical preventive migraine medicines. Six attributes, each with 3 levels, defined the medicines: reduction in headache days per month (10%, 25%, or 50%), frequency of limitations with physical activities (none, 1-category improvement, or 2-category improvement), cognition problems (no problems, thinking problems, or memory problems), weight gain (none, 5% body weight gain, or 10% body weight gain), how the medicine is taken (daily oral pill, once-monthly injection, or twice-monthly injection), and monthly out-of-pocket cost ($5, $60, or $175). The attributes and levels were informed by clinician input, the clinical literature, and 2 focus groups. An experimental design was used to create the pairs of hypothetical medicines for the discrete-choice experiment questions. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate the relative importance of the medicine attributes, and the results were used to predict the percentage of respondents who would select one medicine profile over another and to calculate willingness to pay for changes in attribute levels. RESULTS: The sample included 300 respondents; 72% indicated that migraines make physical activities difficult all or most of the time, and 81% had taken a prescription medicine to prevent migraine in the last 6 months. Respondents reported having, on average, approximately 16 headache days per month. Among noncost attributes, respondents valued a change from a 10% reduction in migraine days to a 50% reduction more highly than avoiding the worst levels of AEs, but were willing to trade off efficacy for less-severe AEs. Avoiding memory problems was more important than avoiding thinking problems. Avoiding a 10% weight gain was more important than avoiding thinking and memory problems. Respondents preferred a once-monthly injection or daily pill to twice-monthly injection. Respondents, on average, were willing to pay $84 (95% confidence interval [CI], $64-$103) per month to avoid a 10% weight gain, $59 (95% CI, $42-$76) per month to avoid memory problems, $35 (95% CI, $20-$51) per month to avoid a 5% weight gain, and $32 (95% CI, $18-$46) per month to avoid thinking problems. CONCLUSIONS: A preventive migraine medicine with improved efficacy and AE profile and a favorable mode of administration would be valuable to migraine sufferers. Patients may be willing to trade off efficacy for better AE profiles. Clinicians should work with patients to select treatments that meet each patient's needs.

Comparing the Relative Importance of Attributes of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatments to Patients and Physicians in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: Value assessments of new treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should include outcomes that are most important to patients. This study aimed to quantify and compare the conditional relative importance of the attributes of RCC treatments to patients and physicians in the United States. METHODS: Patients with RCC and physicians who treat RCC completed an online discrete-choice experiment survey with a fractional factorial D-optimal experimental design. In a series of 12 questions, respondents chose between two hypothetical treatments defined in terms of six attributes: progression-free survival (PFS), probability of living ≥ 3 years (PL3Y), skin reactions, severity of fatigue, mode of administration, and monthly co-payment. Treatment choices were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model to estimate relative preference weights for the attribute levels and conditional relative attribute importance (i.e. the importance of an attribute relative to all other attributes conditional on the range of levels of that attribute). RESULTS: Overall, 201 patients and 142 physicians completed the survey. For both patients and physicians, PL3Y was the attribute with the greatest and statistically significant conditional relative importance. Estimates of the conditional relative importance of PFS, skin reactions, and mode of administration for patients, and for PFS and mode of administration for physicians, were not statistically significant. The preferences for improvements in PFS were independent of the level of PL3Y for both patients and physicians. Conditional relative attribute importance varied by patient disease stage. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians indicated that PL3Y was the most important treatment attribute and was significantly more important than PFS. Importance rankings differed between physicians and patients and between all patients and those with advanced/metastatic disease.