Key informant views on potential acceptability and feasibility of long-acting antiretroviral treatment for HIV in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 14% of diagnosed persons living with HIV (PLWH) in Kenya were not taking antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 19% of those on ART had unsuppressed viral loads. Long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) may increase viral suppression by promoting ART uptake and adherence. We conducted key informant (KI) interviews with HIV experts in Kenya to identify product and delivery attributes related to the acceptability and feasibility of providing LA-ART to PLWH in Kenya. METHODS: Interviews were conducted via Zoom on potential LA-ART options including intra-muscular (IM) injections, subcutaneous (SC) injections, implants, and LA oral pills. KI were asked to discuss the products they were most and least excited about, as well as barriers and facilitators to LA-ART roll-out. In addition, they were asked about potential delivery locations for LA-ART products such as homes, pharmacies, and clinics. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: Twelve KI (5 women, 7 men) participated between December 2021 and February 2022. Overall, participants reported that LA-ART would be acceptable and preferable to PLWH because of fatigue with daily oral pills. They viewed IM injections and LA oral pills as the most exciting options to ease pill burden and improve adherence. KI felt that populations who could benefit most were adolescents in boarding schools and stigmatized populations such as sex workers. SC injections and implants were less favored, as they would require new training initiatives for patients or healthcare workers on administration. In addition, SC injections would require refrigeration and needle disposal after use. Some KI thought patients, especially men, might worry that IM injections and implants would impact fertility, given their role in family planning. Pharmacies were perceived by most KI as suboptimal delivery locations; however, given ongoing work in Kenya to include pharmacies in antiretroviral delivery, they recommended asking patients their views. CONCLUSION: There is interest and support for LA-ART in Kenya, especially IM injections and LA oral pills. Identifying patient preferences for modes and delivery locations and addressing misconceptions about specific products as they become available will be important before wide-scale implementation.

Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries. METHODS: A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit-risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated. RESULTS: Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes. CONCLUSION: Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics.

A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.

Use of Bayesian decision analysis to maximize value in patient-centered randomized clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.

A fixed one-sided significance level of 5% is commonly used to interpret the statistical significance of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. While it is necessary to reduce the false positive rate, the threshold used could be chosen quantitatively and transparently to specifically reflect patient preferences regarding benefit-risk tradeoffs as well as other considerations. How can patient preferences be explicitly incorporated into RCTs in Parkinson's disease (PD), and what is the impact on statistical thresholds for device approval? In this analysis, we apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to PD patient preference scores elicited from survey data. BDA allows us to choose a sample size (n) and significance level (α) that maximizes the overall expected value to patients of a balanced two-arm fixed-sample RCT, where the expected value is computed under both null and alternative hypotheses. For PD patients who had previously received deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, the BDA-optimal significance levels fell between 4.0% and 10.0%, similar to or greater than the traditional value of 5%. Conversely, for patients who had never received DBS, the optimal significance level ranged from 0.2% to 4.4%. In both of these populations, the optimal significance level increased with the severity of the patients' cognitive and motor function symptoms. By explicitly incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial designs and the regulatory decision-making process, BDA provides a quantitative and transparent approach to combine clinical and statistical significance. For PD patients who have never received DBS treatment, a 5% significance threshold may not be conservative enough to reflect their risk-aversion level. However, this study shows that patients who previously received DBS treatment present a higher tolerance to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for improved efficacy which is reflected in a higher statistical threshold.

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta-analysis of opioid dependence and a long-term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Lower-dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit-risk score (0.901), followed by higher-dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower-dose NGFi was the highest-ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit-risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.23 for NSAIDs). CONCLUSION: The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit-risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

Assessing Payers' Preferences for Real-World Evidence in the United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To rank the US payers' preferences for attributes of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in the context of chronic disease and to quantify trade-offs among them. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 180 employees from payer organizations were tasked to choose between 2 RWE studies assuming they were assessing evidence to inform formulary decisions for chronic disease treatment. Each RWE study was characterized by 7 attributes with 3 levels each: very informative, moderately informative, and not measured. We used a D-optimal main-effects design. Survey data were fitted to a conditional logit model to obtain a relative measure of the ranking of importance for each attribute. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were the most preferred attribute. It was 4.68 times as important as productivity outcomes-the least preferred attribute. It was followed by health-related quality of life (2.78), methodologic rigor (2.09), resource utilization (1.71), and external validity (1.56). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a quantification of the value payers place on key RWE attributes. Across attributes, payers have higher preferences for clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes than the other attributes. Between attributes' levels, payers prefer high levels of information in clinical outcomes and methodologic rigor but are indifferent in other attributes. Our results bridge the gap between the information that payers seek and the attributes that RWE studies prioritize and effectively guide future research design.

The systematic development of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment of HIV patient preferences for long-acting antiretroviral therapies in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Patient preferences for long-acting antiretroviral therapies (LA-ART) should inform development of regimens with optimal adherence and acceptability. We describe a systematic process used to identify attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) designed to elicit preferences for potential LA-ART options in the US. METHODS: Our approach was conducted in four stages: data collection, data reduction, removing inappropriate attributes, and optimizing wording. We started with 8 attributes defining potential LA-ART products based on existing literature and knowledge of products in development. We conducted 12 key informant interviews with experts in HIV treatment. The list of attributes, the set of plausible levels for each attribute, and restrictions on combinations of attribute levels were updated iteratively. RESULTS: Despite uncertainty about which products will become available, key informant discussions converged on 4 delivery modes (infusions and patches were not considered immediately feasible) and 6 additional attributes. Treatment effectiveness and frequency of clinical monitoring were dropped. Oral lead-in therapy was split into two attributes: pre-treatment time undetectable and pre-treatment negative reaction testing. We omitted product-specific systemic and local side effects. In addition to mode, the final set of attributes included: frequency of dosing; location of treatment; pain; pre-treatment time undetectable; pre-treatment negative reaction testing; and late-dose leeway. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic process successfully captured elements that are both feasible and relevant to evaluating the acceptability of potential LA-ART alternatives to patients.

Patient perspectives regarding gene therapy in haemophilia: Interviews from the PAVING study.

INTRODUCTION: Exploring patient perceptions regarding gene therapies may provide insights about their acceptability to patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate opinions of people with haemophilia (PWH) regarding gene therapies. Moreover, this study aimed to identify patient-relevant attributes (treatment features) that influence PWH's treatment choices. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with Belgian PWH, types A and B. A predefined interview guide included information sections and open, attribute ranking and case questions. Qualitative data were organized using NVivo 12 and analysed following framework analysis. Sum totals of scores obtained in the ranking exercise were calculated per attribute. RESULTS: In total, 20 PWH participated in the interviews. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards gene therapy and were very willing (40%; n = 8) or willing (35%; n = 7) to receive this treatment. The following five attributes were identified as most important to PWH in making their choice: annual bleeding rate, factor level, uncertainty of long-term risks, impact on daily life, and probability that prophylaxis can be stopped. While participants were concerned about the uncertainty regarding long-term safety, most participants were less concerned about uncertainty regarding long-term efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study showed that most PWH have a positive attitude towards gene therapy and that besides efficacy, safety and the related uncertainties, also impact on daily life is important to patients. The identified patient-relevant attributes may be used by regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers in their evaluation of gene therapies for haemophilia. Moreover, they may inform clinical trial design, pay-for-performance schemes and real-world evidence studies.

Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study was to investigate trade-offs that adult Belgian people with haemophilia (PWH) A and B are willing to make when choosing between prophylactic factor replacement therapy (PFRT) and gene therapy. METHODS: The threshold technique was used to quantify the minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) of a switch from PFRT to gene therapy in terms of 'Annual bleeding rate' (ABR), 'Chance to stop prophylaxis' (STOP), and 'Quality of life' (QOL). The design was supported by stakeholder involvement and included an educational tool on gene therapy. Threshold intervals were analysed using interval regression models in Stata 16. RESULTS: A total of 117 PWH completed the survey. Mean thresholds were identified for all benefits, but substantial preference heterogeneity was observed; especially for the STOP thresholds, where the distribution of preferences was bimodal. Time spent on the educational tool and residence were found to impact MAB thresholds. The most accepted (88% of PWH) gene therapy profile investigated in this study comprised of zero bleeds per year (vs. six for PFRT), 90% chance to stop prophylaxis, no impact on QoL, and 10 years of follow-up on side effects (vs. 30 for PFRT). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study proved the value of educating patients on novel treatments. Moreover, preference heterogeneity for novel treatments was confirmed in this study. In gene therapy decision-making, preference heterogeneity and the impact of patient education on acceptance should be considered.

CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: physician preferences trading off benefits, risks and time to infusion.

Aims: We evaluated physicians' willingness to trade-off benefits, risks and time to infusion for CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Materials & methods: In a discrete-choice experiment survey, 150 US oncologists/hematologists chose between two hypothetical CAR T-cell treatments defined by six attributes. Results: Decreasing time to infusion from 113 to 16 days yielded the greatest change in preference weight (1.91). Physicians were willing to accept a >20% increase in risk of severe cytokine release syndrome and 15% increase in risk of severe neurological events in exchange for an increase in the probability of overall survival at 24 months from 40 to 55%. Conclusion: Physicians value reducing time to infusion and will accept incremental increases in serious adverse event risks to gain survival improvements.

Lay abstract CAR-T therapy is a treatment option for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that has not responded to at least two other kinds of treatments. CAR-T therapies are manufactured from a patient's white blood cells, modified to attack lymphoma cells. A CAR-T therapy takes time to manufacture after these cells are collected. CAR-T therapies can result in the reduction or disappearance of lymphoma tumors and can increase the chances of survival, but also cause serious side effects for a few patients. One of these is cytokine release syndrome (CRS), in which high levels of inflammation throughout the body may cause fever, heart problems or difficulty breathing. Another is the development of temporary but serious neurological problems such as confusion, seizures and memory problems. To understand how important physicians consider certain features of CAR-T therapies to be when deciding whether to recommend them, we asked physicians to choose between two treatment options resembling CAR-T therapies in a series of questions, with the CAR-T features varying in each question. Their answers indicated whether disappearance of tumors, a patient's chances of survival after 1 and 2 years of treatment, manufacturing time, or the risk of CRS or neurological problems was the most important factor. Physicians most wanted to reduce manufacturing time from 113 to 16 days, but also were willing to accept a >20% increase in risk of severe CRS and a 15% increase in risk of severe neurological events to increase a patient's chance of survival from 40 to 55% at 2 years.

A revealed preference analysis to develop composite scores approximating lung allocation policy in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: The patient ranking process for donor lung allocation in the United States is carried out by a classification-based, computerized algorithm, known as the match system. Experts have suggested that a continuous, points-based allocation framework would better serve waiting list candidates by removing hard boundaries and increasing transparency into the relative importance of factors used to prioritize candidates. We applied discrete choice modeling to match run data to determine the feasibility of approximating current lung allocation policy by one or more composite scores. Our study aimed to demystify the points-based approach to organ allocation policy; quantify the relative importance of factors used in current policy; and provide a viable policy option that adapts the current, classification-based system to the continuous allocation framework. METHODS: Rank ordered logistic regression models were estimated using 6466 match runs for 5913 adult donors and 534 match runs for 488 pediatric donors from 2018. Four primary attributes are used to rank candidates and were included in the models: (1) medical priority, (2) candidate age, (3) candidate's transplant center proximity to the donor hospital, and (4) blood type compatibility with the donor. RESULTS: Two composite scores were developed, one for adult and one for pediatric donor allocation. Candidate rankings based on the composite scores were highly correlated with current policy rankings (Kendall's Tau ~ 0.80, Spearman correlation > 90%), indicating both scores strongly reflect current policy. In both models, candidates are ranked higher if they have higher medical priority, are registered at a transplant center closer to the donor hospital, or have an identical blood type to the donor. Proximity was the most important attribute. Under a points-based scoring system, candidates in further away zones are sometimes ranked higher than more proximal candidates compared to current policy. CONCLUSIONS: Revealed preference analysis of lung allocation match runs produced composite scores that capture the essence of current policy while removing rigid boundaries of the current classification-based system. A carefully crafted, continuous version of lung allocation policy has the potential to make better use of the limited supply of donor lungs in a manner consistent with the priorities of the transplant community.

Quantifying the importance of inhaler attributes corresponding to items in the patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire in patients using Combivent Respimat.

BACKGROUND: Physicians consider ease of use, satisfaction, and preferences when prescribing an inhaler device. These factors may impact appropriate usage and compliance. METHODS: The objectives were to quantify the relative importance of inhaler attributes in patients currently using Combivent Respimat by eliciting preferences for performance and convenience attributes assessed by items in the Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ). Using a pharmacy database, 19,964 adults in the United States who filled ≥2 Combivent Respimat prescriptions were identified. Of those, 8150 patients were randomly selected to receive invitation letters. The online cross-sectional survey included the PASAPQ and best-worst scaling (BWS) questions. The PASAPQ measures satisfaction with medication attributes across two domains: performance and convenience. BWS questions asked participants to select the most and least important device attributes. A descriptive statistics analysis of the PASAPQ and a random-parameters logit model of BWS responses were conducted. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 503 participants. Most were female (57.3%), white (88.5%), and 51-70 years old (67.6%). Approximately 47% reported a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis, 21.9% asthma, 8.2% other lung disease, and 23.1% more than one lung disease. PASAPQ scores indicated that the majority were satisfied or very satisfied; up to 20% reported being dissatisfied with Combivent Respimat. The three most important inhaler attributes were Feeling that your medicine gets into your lungs, Inhaler works reliably, and Inhaler makes inhaling your medicine easy. The most important attributes corresponded to six of seven items in the PASAPQ performance domain. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported satisfaction with Combivent Respimat. Performance attributes were more important than convenience attributes.

Hemodialysis patients' preferences for the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement and patient-centered care are critical in optimally managing patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Understanding patient preferences is a key element of patient-centered care and shared decision making. The objective of this study was to elicit patients' preferences for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) associated with ESRD using a discrete-choice experiment survey. METHODS: Clinical literature, nephrologist input, patient-education resources, and a patient focus group informed development of the survey instrument, which was qualitatively pretested before its administration to a broader sample of patients. The National Kidney Foundation invited individuals in the United States with ESRD who were undergoing hemodialysis to participate in the survey. Respondents chose among three hypothetical SHPT treatment alternatives (two medical alternatives and surgery) in each of a series of questions, which were defined by attributes of efficacy (effect on laboratory values and symptoms), safety, tolerability, mode of administration, and cost. The survey instrument included a best-worst scaling exercise to quantify the relative bother of the individual attributes of surgery. Random-parameters logit models were used to evaluate the conditional relative importance of the attributes. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients with ESRD completed the survey. The treatment attributes that were most important to the respondents were whether a treatment was a medication or surgery and out-of-pocket cost. Patients had statistically significant preferences for efficacy attributes related to symptom management and laboratory values, but placed less importance on the attributes related to mode of administration and side effects. The most bothersome attribute of surgery was the risk of surgical mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESRD and SHPT who are undergoing hemodialysis understand SHPT and have clear and measurable treatment preferences. These results may help inform clinicians about patients' preferences regarding treatment options for a common complication of ESRD.

Hemodialysis patients' preferences for the management of anemia.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is expected to result in a more patient-centered approach to care that aligns with patients' values, preferences, and goals for treatment. Nevertheless, no previous studies of which we are aware have evaluated patients' benefit-risk preferences for the management of anemia associated with ESRD. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the tradeoffs patients are willing to make between cardiovascular risks associated with some anemia medicines and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. A secondary objective was to quantify the importance of avoiding transfusion-related risks. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed from the clinical literature, clinician input, patient-education resources, and a patient focus group. The survey instrument was qualitatively pretested before its administration to a broader sample of patients. The National Kidney Foundation invited individuals in the United States to participate in the survey. In a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), respondents chose between two hypothetical anemia medications in a series of questions. Each medication was defined by symptom relief, frequency of transfusions, cardiovascular risk, mode of administration, and out-of-pocket cost. The survey also included a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise to quantify the importance of avoiding attributes of blood transfusions. Results from the DCE were used to estimate relative importance and marginal willingness to pay. Results from the BWS were converted to relative importance weights. RESULTS: A total of 200 individuals completed the survey. Patients were willing to accept a 6% medication-related risk of heart attack to avoid having two RBC transfusions per month. Symptom relief and mode of administration were of moderate importance. The most important transfusion-related risk to avoid was transfusion-related lung injury. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESRD and anemia have measurable treatment preferences and are willing to accept risks associated with anemia medications to avoid transfusions.

Treatment preferences of adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: A discrete choice experiment.

PRODUCTS with janus kinase (JAK) inhibition have been shown to promote hair regrowth in patients with alopecia areata (AA). To guide drug-approval and treatment decisions, it is important to understand patients' willingness to accept the potential risks of JAK inhibition in exchange for potential benefits. We quantified the treatment preferences of adult (≥18 years) and adolescent patients (12-17 years) with AA in the US and Europe to determine the trade-offs they are willing to make between benefits and risks. Preferences for oral AA treatment attributes were elicited using a discrete choice experiment consisting of 12 tasks in which patients chose between two hypothetical treatment alternatives and no treatment. Benefits included the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth (Severity of Alopecia Tool score ≤ 20) and achieving moderate-to-normal eyebrow and eyelash hair. Treatment-related risks included 3-year probabilities of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots. Preference estimates were used to calculate the maximum level of each risk that patients were willing to accept for increases in treatment benefits. The most important attribute to both adults (n = 201) and adolescents (n = 120) was a 50% probability of achieving hair regrowth on most or all the scalp; however, adolescents placed greater relative importance on this attribute than did adults. Adults were averse to the risks of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots, whereas adolescents were averse to the risk of cancer. For a 20% increase in the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth, adults were willing to accept a mean (95% confidence interval) 3-year risk of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots of 7.4% (5.5-9.3), 2.5% (1.9-3.1), and 9.3% (6.4-12.2). Adolescents were willing to accept a 3-year risk of cancer of 3.3% (2.4-4.2). Patients with AA in the US and Europe are willing to accept substantial risks to obtain an effective treatment.

Priorities for contraceptive method and service delivery attributes among adolescent girls and young women in Kenya: a qualitative study.

Introduction: Despite increasing global commitment to meeting the family planning needs of adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), there is limited research on how they prioritize contraceptive method and service delivery characteristics. In this qualitative study, we examine the specific elements that drive the contraceptive choices of Kenyan AGYW, and apply our findings to the development of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: Our four-stage approach included data collection, data reduction, removing inappropriate attributes, and optimizing wording. Between June-October 2021, we conducted in-depth interviews with 30 sexually-active 15-24 year-old AGYW in Kisumu county, Kenya who were non-pregnant and desired to delay pregnancy. Interviews focused on priorities for contraceptive attributes, how AGYW make trade-offs between among these attributes, and the influences of preferences on contraceptive choice. Translated transcripts were qualitatively coded and analyzed with a constant comparative approach to identify key concepts. We developed and iteratively revised a list of attributes and levels, and pre-tested draft DCE choice tasks using cognitive interviews with an additional 15 AGYW to optimize comprehension and relevance. Results: In-depth interview participants' median age was 18, 70% were current students, and 93% had a primary sexual partner. AGYW named a variety of priorities and preferences related to choosing and accessing contraceptive methods, which we distilled into six key themes: side effects; effectiveness; user control; privacy; source of services; and cost. Bleeding pattern was top of mind for participants; amenorrhea was generally considered an intolerable side effect. Many participants felt more strongly about privacy than effectiveness, though some prioritized duration of use and minimizing chance of pregnancy above other contraceptive characteristics. Most AGYW preferred a clinic setting for access, as they desired contraceptive counseling from a provider, but pharmacies were considered preferable for reasons of privacy. We selected, refined, and pre-tested 7 DCE attributes, each with 2-4 levels. Conclusions: Identifying AGYW preferences for contraceptive method and service delivery characteristics is essential to developing innovative strategies to meet their unique SRH needs. DCE methods may provide valuable quantitative perspectives to guide and tailor contraceptive counseling and service delivery interventions for AGYW who want to use contraception.

Understanding Clinician Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Oncology: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Oncologists' and Urologists' Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced/Unresectable Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK. METHODS: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis. RESULTS: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians. CONCLUSION: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED. RESULTS: A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each). CONCLUSIONS: FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.

Patient Acceptability and Preferences for Solid Oral Dosage Form Drug Product Attributes: A Scoping Review.

Background: There is no consistent framework for patient-centric drug product design, despite the common understanding that drug product acceptability and preferences influence adherence and, therefore, drug product effectiveness. The aim of this review was to assess current understanding of patient acceptability and preferences for solid oral dosage form (SODF) drug product attributes, and the potential impact of these attributes on patient behaviors and outcomes. Patients and Methods: A scoping review was conducted. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE®, and PubMed® were searched for full-text articles published between January 2013 and May 2023. Following screening and assessment against predefined inclusion criteria, data were analyzed thematically. Results: Nineteen studies were included. Four overarching domains of drug product attributes were identified and summarized in a framework: appearance, swallowability, palatability, and handling. Each domain was informed by specific drug product attributes: texture, form, size, shape, color, marking, taste, mouthfeel, and smell. The most frequently studied domains were swallowability and appearance, while the most studied attributes were size, shape, and texture. Smell, marking, and mouthfeel were the least studied attributes. Texture intersected all domains, while form, shape, and size intersected appearance, swallowability, and handling. Swallowability and size appeared to be the key domain and attribute, respectively, to consider when designing drug products. Few studies explored the impact of drug product attributes on behaviors and outcomes. Conclusion: While existing studies of drug product attributes have focused on appearance and swallowability, this review highlighted the importance of two less well-understood domains-palatability and handling-in understanding patients' acceptability and preferences for SODF drug products. The framework provides a tool to facilitate patient-centric design of drug products, organizing and categorizing physical drug product attributes into four overarching domains (appearance, swallowability, palatability, and handling), encouraging researchers to comprehensively assess the impact of drug product attributes on patient acceptability, preferences, and outcomes.

Medicines come in a variety of types and forms. These include tablets and capsules. Factors, such as the size and shape of tablets, can affect how people take medicines. However, patients are rarely involved in designing the medicines that they take. In this study, researchers summarized 19 studies published between 2013 and 2023. They wanted to understand how different factors, like size and shape, affect patients' preferences, ability, and willingness to take medicines. Researchers focused on the "physical" aspects of medicines and found 4 common themes: 1) what they look like (appearance), 2) how easy they are to swallow (swallowability), 3) how they taste and feel in the mouth (palatability), and 4) how easy they are to handle (handling). Eight factors were also found: color, markings, shape, size, smell, taste, texture, and how a medicine feels in the mouth (mouthfeel). Most studies focused on what medicines look like and how easy they are to swallow. The factors that researchers mostly looked at were the size, shape, and texture of medicines. The design of medicines can impact patients of different ages, though there may be specific needs for certain groups of patients, including children, older adults, and people with certain diseases. Patient input should become a part of future medicines design to ensure their acceptability.

From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is fundamental for designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) but is often underreported in the preference literature. We developed a DCE to elicit preferences for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among adolescents and young people (AYP) and parents and legal guardians (PLG) in the United States. This article reports the targeted literature review and qualitative interviews that informed the DCE design and demonstrates how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies. METHODS: This study included two parts: a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on IMD and immunization. The results of the targeted literature review informed a qualitative interview guide. Sixty-minute, online, semi-structured interviews with AYP and PLG were used to identify themes related to willingness to be vaccinated against IMD. Participants were recruited through a third-party recruiter's database and commercial online panels. Interviews included vignettes about IMD and vaccinations and three thresholding exercises examining the effect of incidence rate, disability rate, and fatality rate on vaccination preferences. Participant responses related to the themes were counted. RESULTS: The targeted literature review identified 31 concepts that were synthesized into six topics for the qualitative interviews. Twenty AYP aged 16-23 years and 20 PLG of adolescents aged 11-17 years were interviewed. Four themes related to willingness to be vaccinated emerged: attitudes towards vaccination, knowledge and information, perception of IMD, and vaccine attributes. Most participants were concerned about IMD (AYP 60%; PLG 85%) and had positive views of vaccination (AYP 80%; PLG 60%). Ninety percent of AYP and 75% of PLG always chose vaccination over no vaccination, independent of IMD incidence rate, disability rate, or fatality rate. CONCLUSION: Willingness to be vaccinated against IMD was affected by vaccine attributes but largely insensitive to IMD incidence and severity. This article provides an example of how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies, with 21 out of 22 items in the guidelines being considered.