Treatment preferences among Japanese patients and physicians for epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence is limited on preferences of Japanese patients and physicians in treatment for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several oral or intravenous novel agents for EGFR exon 20 insertions are under development. The aim of our study was to investigate which attributes of novel treatments influenced selection of oral or intravenous agents among treated patients and treating physicians in Japan. METHODS: The study was designed by board-certified oncologists, patient representatives, and analytics specialists. Eligible participants completed an online survey with a discrete choice experiment presenting two treatment profiles described by attributes: mode of administration (oral or intravenous); frequency of administration; overall response rate (ORR); average progression-free survival (PFS); chance of experiencing severe side effects (SEs); mild-moderate gastrointestinal SEs; mild-moderate skin-related SEs; and patient out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (all self-reported EGFR-mutant) and 74 physicians participated from December 2021 to August 2022. All attributes being equal, there was greater preference for oral administration. However, there was greater preference for intravenous over oral, when ORR and PFS improved by 10% and 1 month, and severe SEs reduced by 10%. Physicians exhibited greater preference for PFS compared to patients (p < 0.01). Ranked order of attribute importance was as follows: (1) PFS; (2) ORR; (3) severe SEs, expressed by patients and physicians alike. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed Japanese physician and patient preferences in treatment options for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Compared to the strong preference for a more efficacious drug, the preference of oral versus intravenous revealed a smaller impact.

Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes of Nasal Spray Treatments of Olopatadine Hydrochloride/Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate and Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate for Allergic Rhinitis in Australia - An Observational Real-World Clinical Study.

Purpose: Combination intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine sprays are a first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR), of which Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray (AZE/FLU; Dymista®), and Olopatadine Hydrochloride and Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate nasal spray (OLO/MOM; Ryaltris®) are currently registered in Australia. As it is not known how patients value treatment attributes of current combination nasal sprays, this observational, real-world clinical study aimed to understand patients' satisfaction with, and importance of, treatment attributes of OLO/MOM and AZE/FLU using an Anchored Best-Worst Scaling (ABWS) exercise. Participants and Methods: Four hundred and twenty-six adults in Australia with moderate to severe AR using either OLO/MOM or AZE/FLU completed an online survey incorporating an ABWS with 11 domains: 7 sensory (immediate taste of medication, aftertaste of medication, smell of medication, irritation to your nose, urge to sneeze, dripping out your nose/down your throat, dryness of your nose/throat) and 4 treatment-related (convenience, fast acting, duration of effect, and AR symptom control). The ABWS involved rescaling individual BWS scores using anchored ratings (0-10) for most and least satisfied/important domains to create a total satisfaction index (TSI) (0-100) to be compared across groups. Statistical comparisons were completed using ANOVA (TSI) and MANOVA (individual domains). Results: Participants using OLO/MOM (M = 68.26, SE = 1.39) had significantly higher TSI than participants using AZE/FLU (M=62.78, SE = 0.70) (p < 0.001), significantly higher satisfaction on 7 of 11 domains and regarded 8 of 11 domains as significantly more important compared to participants using AZE/FLU (all p < 0.05). Preferred domains were predominantly sensory attributes. Conclusion: Current findings showed that participants using OLO/MOM were more satisfied with their overall treatment compared to participants using AZE/FLU, particularly with sensory attributes, thus highlighting the suitability of OLO/MOM for people with AR who value sensory attributes. Prescribers of AR treatments are encouraged to discuss treatment attributes with patients to facilitate shared decision-making.