Heart failure patients' perspectives on treatment outcomes and unmet medical needs: A qualitative preference study.

AIMS: Decision-makers still predominantly focus on the perspective of non-patient stakeholders, which may deviate from the unique perspective of heart failure (HF) patients. To enhance patient-centred decision-making, there is a need for more patient-based evidence derived directly from the patients themselves. Hence, this study aimed to understand (i) HF patients' unmet medical needs and preferred treatment outcomes; (ii) patients' risk tolerance; and (iii) their information needs, uncertainties and satisfaction towards HF treatment. METHODS: This qualitative patient preference study consisted of a literature review with a systematic search strategy and semi-structured interviews with HF patients, analysed using the framework method. During the interviews, patients were asked to rank a predefined list of disease and treatment-related characteristics informed by the literature review and were able to spontaneously raise additional characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 14 Belgian HF patients (age range: 58-79, mean age: 72). (i) Regarding their unmet medical needs, HF patients reported that the most important unmet medical needs were shortness of breath and fatigue, as they negatively impact their quality of life (QoL) and independence. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritized improvements in QoL over improvements in life expectancy, whereby the following characteristics received the highest cumulative score: (1) independence, (2) shortness of breath, (3) impaired renal function, (4) survival, (5) fatigue, (6) risk of hospitalization and (7) communication with and between physicians. Patients most often spontaneously raise characteristics related to the general care process. Mechanism of action, route of administration, dose frequency and weight fluctuations scored among the least important characteristics. (ii) Regarding patients' risk tolerance towards HF treatment, some of the patients expressed zero tolerance for side effects, as they had not yet experienced any discomfort caused by the treatment or disease. (iii) Regarding their information needs, patients voiced their desire to receive practical and comprehensible advice orally from their physician because they highly value individualized treatment decision-making. Patients also expressed uncertainties regarding whether the experienced effects were due to their treatment, disease, ageing or other comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, besides increasing life expectancy, HF patients prioritize improvements in symptoms and side effects reducing their QoL and independence, such as shortness of breath and fatigue. The patient-relevant characteristics identified in this study, from the perspective of HF patients themselves, may be useful to inform clinical trial endpoint selection and guide downstream drug development, evaluation and clinical decision-making towards addressing the unmet medical needs and treatment outcomes of importance to HF patients.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Balancing benefits and risks in lung cancer therapies: patient preferences for lung cancer treatment alternatives.

Background: In the treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) the combination of Immuno- Oncotherapy (IO) and chemotherapy (CT) has been found to be superior to IO or CT alone for patients' survival. Patients and clinicians are confronted with a preference sensitive choice between a more aggressive treatment with a greater negative effect on quality of life versus alternatives that are less effective but have fewer side effects. Objectives: The aims of this study were to: (a) quantify patients' preferences for relevant attributes related to Immuno-Oncotherapy treatment alternatives, and (b) evaluate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR)/Minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) that patients would accept for treatment alternatives. Methods: An online preference survey using discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was completed by NSCLC patients from two hospitals in Italy and Belgium. The survey asked patients' preferences for five patient- relevant treatment attributes. The DCE was developed using a Bayesian D-efficient design. DCE analyses were performed using mixed logit models. Information regarding patient demographics, health literacy, locus of control, and quality of life was also collected. Results: 307 patients (158 Italian, 149 Belgian), stage I to IV, completed the survey. Patients preferred treatments with a higher 5-year survival chance as the most important attribute over all the other attributes. Preference heterogeneity for the attribute weights depended on health literacy, patients' age and locus of control. Patients were willing to accept a substantially increased risks of developing side effects in exchange for the slightest increase (1%) in the chance of surviving at least 5 years from the diagnosis of cancer. Similarly, patients were willing to accept a switch in the mode of administration or complete loss of hair to obtain an increase in survival. Conclusion: In this study, the proportion of respondents who systematically preferred survival over all other treatment attributes was particularly high. Age, objective health literacy and locus of control accounted for heterogeneity in patients' preferences. Evidence on how NSCLC patients trade between survival and other NSCLC attributes can support regulators and other stakeholders on assessing clinical trial evidence and protocols, based on patients' conditions and socio-demographic parameters.

Uncertainty management in regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making on drugs: guidance of the HTAi-DIA Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: Uncertainty is a fundamental component of decision making regarding access to and pricing and reimbursement of drugs. The context-specific interpretation and mitigation of uncertainty remain major challenges for decision makers. Following the 2021 HTAi Global Policy Forum, a cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary HTAi-DIA Working Group (WG) was initiated to develop guidance to support stakeholder deliberation on the systematic identification and mitigation of uncertainties in the regulatory-HTA interface. METHODS: Six online discussions among WG members (Dec 2021-Sep 2022) who examined the output of a scoping review, two literature-based case studies and a survey; application of the initial guidance to a real-world case study; and two international conference panel discussions. RESULTS: The WG identified key concepts, clustered into twelve building blocks that were collectively perceived to define uncertainty: "unavailable," "inaccurate," "conflicting," "not understandable," "random variation," "information," "prediction," "impact," "risk," "relevance," "context," and "judgment." These were converted into a checklist to explain and define whether any issue constitutes a decision-relevant uncertainty. A taxonomy of domains in which uncertainty may exist within the regulatory-HTA interface was developed to facilitate categorization. The real-world case study was used to demonstrate how the guidance may facilitate deliberation between stakeholders and where additional guidance development may be needed. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic approach taken for the identification of uncertainties in this guidance has the potential to facilitate understanding of uncertainty and its management across different stakeholders involved in drug development and evaluation. This can improve consistency and transparency throughout decision processes. To further support uncertainty management, linkage to suitable mitigation strategies is necessary.

Patients as research partners in preference studies: learnings from IMI-PREFER.

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. OBJECTIVE: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. METHODS: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. RESULTS: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of 'patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. CONCLUSION: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area.

Research about patients' preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as 'research partners,' that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners' involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done.

What are the Unmet Needs and Most Relevant Treatment Outcomes According to Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease? A Qualitative Patient Preference Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: As more therapeutic options with their own characteristics become available for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD], drug development and individual treatment decision-making needs to be tailored towards patients' preferences and needs. This study aimed to understand patient preferences among IBD patients, and their most important treatment outcomes and unmet needs. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of [1] a scoping literature review, [2] two focus group discussions [FGDs] with IBD patients [n = 11] using the nominal group technique, and [3] two expert panel discussions. RESULTS: IBD patients discussed a multitude of unmet needs regarding their symptoms, side-effects, and psychological and social issues for which they would welcome improved outcomes. In particular, IBD patients elaborated on the uncertainties and fears they experienced regarding the possible need for surgery or an ostomy, the effectiveness and onset of action of their medication, and the medication's long-term effects. Furthermore, participants extensively discussed the mental impact of IBD and their need for more psychological guidance, support, and improved information and communication with healthcare workers regarding their disease and emotional wellbeing. The following five characteristics were identified during the attribute grading as most important: prevent surgery, long-term clinical remission, improved quality of life [QoL], occurrence of urgency and improved labour rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IBD drug development and treatment decision-making are needed to improve IBD symptoms and adverse events that significantly impact IBD patients' QoL. Furthermore, this study underlines patients' need for a shared decision-making process in which their desired treatment outcomes and uncertainties are explicitly discussed and considered.

What matters most to patients with multiple myeloma? A Pan-European patient preference study.

Introduction: Given the rapid increase in novel treatments for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), this patient preference study aimed to establish which treatment attributes matter most to MM patients and evaluate discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing weighting (SW) as two elicitation methods for quantifying patients' preferences. Methods: A survey incorporating DCE and SW was disseminated among European MM patients. The survey included attributes and levels informed by a previous qualitative study with 24 MM patients. Latent class and mixed logit models were used to estimate the DCE attribute weights and descriptive analyses were performed to derive SW weights. MM patients and patient organisations provided extensive feedback during survey development. Results: 393 MM patients across 21 countries completed the survey (M years since diagnosis=6; M previous therapies=3). Significant differences (p<.01) between participants' attribute weights were revealed depending on participants' prior therapy experience, and their experience with side-effects and symptoms. Multivariate analyses showed that participants across the three MM patient classes identified via the latent class model differed regarding their past number of therapies (F=4.772, p=.009). Patients with the most treatments (class 1) and those with the least treatments (class 3) attached more value to life expectancy versus quality of life-related attributes such as pain, mobility and thinking problems. Conversely, patients with intermediary treatment experience (class 2) attached more value to quality of life-related attributes versus life expectancy. Participants highlighted the difficulty of trading-off between life expectancy and quality of life and between physical and mental health. Participants expressed a need for greater psychological support to cope with their symptoms, treatment side-effects, and uncertainties. With respect to patients' preferences for the DCE or SW questions, 42% had no preference, 32% preferred DCE, and 25% preferred SW. Conclusions: Quality of life-related attributes affecting MM patients' physical, mental and psychological health such as pain, mobility and thinking problems were considered very important to MM patients, next to life expectancy. This underscores a need to include such attributes in decision-making by healthcare stakeholders involved in MM drug development, evidence generation, evaluation, and clinical practice. This study highlights DCE as the preferred methodology for understanding relative attribute weights from a patient's perspective.

How to balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines in Belgium?

Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion: Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets.

Opportunities and Challenges of Web-Based and Remotely Administered Surveys for Patient Preference Studies in a Vulnerable Population.

The application of web-based and remotely administered surveys is becoming increasingly popular due to the fact that it offers numerous advantages over traditional paper-based or computer-based surveys completed in the presence of the researcher. However, it is unclear whether complex preference elicitation tasks administered online in highly vulnerable patient populations are also feasible. This commentary discusses opportunities and challenges of conducting quantitative patient preference studies in lung cancer patients using web-based modes of data collection. We refer to our recent experience in the context of the Patient Preference in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (PREFER) project. Among the main advantages were the possibility of reaching a wider and geographically distant population in a shorter timeframe while reducing the financial costs of testing, the greater flexibility offered and the reduced burden on the patients. Some limitations were also identified and should be the object of further research, including the potential lack of inclusiveness of the research, the lack of control over who is completing the survey, a poor comprehension of the study material, and ultimately a lower level of engagement with the study. Despite these limitations, experience from the PREFER project suggests that online quantitative methods for data collection may provide a valuable method to explore preferences in vulnerable patient populations beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study in Belgium and Italy.

Background: The lung cancer (LC) treatment landscape has drastically expanded with the arrival of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This new variety of treatment options, each with its own characteristics, raises uncertainty regarding the key aspects affecting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). The present qualitative study aimed to investigate how LC patients perceive their HRQL and the factors that they consider to be most influential in determining their HRQL. Methods: This qualitative research incorporates four focus group discussions, with six LC patients in each group. In total, 24 stage III and IV LC patients were included in the discussions, with Italian (n = 12) and Belgian (n = 12) patients, age range: 42-78, median age = 62 (IQR = 9.3 years), SD = 8.5; 62% men. Using thematic analysis, transcripts and notes from the FGDs were analyzed using NVivo software (edition 12). Results: Three main themes capturing determinants of HRQL were identified. First, patients agreed on the importance of physical aspects (symptoms and side-effects) in determining their HRQL. In particular, skin conditions, nausea, fatigue, risk of infections, sensory abnormalities, pain, and changes in physical appearance were highlighted. Second, patients worried about psychological aspects, negatively impacting their wellbeing such as uncertainties regarding their future health state, and a lower degree of autonomy and independence. Third, patients underlined the importance of social aspects, such as communication with healthcare providers and social interaction with friends, family and peers. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that physical, psychological, and social aspects are key factors driving LC patients' HRQL. Gaining a better understanding of how LC patients perceive their HRQL and how it is affected by their illness and therapy will aid patient-centric decision-making across the drug life cycle, by providing stakeholders (drug developers, regulators, reimbursement bodies, and clinicians) insights about the treatment and disease aspects of importance to LC patients as well as the unmet needs LC patients may have regarding available treatment modalities. Finally, this study underscores a need for individual treatment decision-making that is considerate of uncertainties among LC patients about their future health state, and ways for improving communication between healthcare providers and patients to do so.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatments: A Study Protocol for a Preference Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment and Swing Weighting.

Background: Advanced treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. Decisions surrounding NSCLC can be considered as preference-sensitive because multiple treatments exist that vary in terms of mode of administration, treatment schedules, and benefit-risk profiles. As part of the IMI PREFER project, we developed a protocol for an online preference survey for NSCLC patients exploring differences in preferences according to patient characteristics (preference heterogeneity). Moreover, this study will evaluate and compare the use of two different preference elicitation methods, the discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the swing weighting (SW) task. Finally, the study explores how demographic (i.e., age, gender, and educational level) and clinical (i.e., cancer stage and line of treatment) information, health literacy, health locus of control, and quality of life may influence or explain patient preferences and the usefulness of a digital interactive tool in providing information on preference elicitation tasks according to patients. Methods: An online survey will be implemented with the aim to recruit 510 NSCLC patients in Belgium and Italy. Participants will be randomized 50:50 to first receive either the DCE or the SW. The survey will also collect information on participants' disease-related status, health locus of control, health literacy, quality of life, and perception of the educational tool. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps to quantitatively elicit and study patient preferences for NSCLC treatment alternatives. Results from this study will increase the understanding of which treatment aspects are most valued by NSCLC patients to inform decision-making in drug development, regulatory approval, and reimbursement. Methodologically, the comparison between the DCE and the SW task will be valuable to gain information on how these preference methods perform against each other in eliciting patient preferences. Overall, this protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing quantitative patient preferences into decision-making along the medical product life cycle.

Patient Preferences for Multiple Myeloma Treatments: A Multinational Qualitative Study.

Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.

What Matters Most to Lung Cancer Patients? A Qualitative Study in Italy and Belgium to Investigate Patient Preferences.

Background: The potential value of patient preference studies has been recognized in clinical individual treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients, as well as in upstream drug decision-making. Drug developers, regulators, reimbursement and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are exploring how the use of patient preference studies could inform drug development, regulatory benefit risk-assessment and reimbursement decisions respectively. Understanding patient preferences may be especially valuable in decisions regarding Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment options, where a variety of treatment options with different characteristics raise uncertainty about which features are most important to NSCLC patients. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, this qualitative study aimed to identify patient-relevant lung cancer treatment characteristics. Methods: This study consisted of a scoping literature review and four focus group discussions, 2 in Italy and 2 in Belgium, with a total of 24 NSCLC patients (Stages III-IV). The focus group discussions sought to identify which treatment characteristics patients find most relevant. The discussions were analyzed thematically using a thematic inductive analysis. Results: Patients highlighted themes reflecting: 1) positive effects or expected gains from treatment such as greater life expectancy and maintenance of daily functioning, 2) negative effects or adverse events related to therapy that negatively impact patients' daily functioning such as fatigue and 3) uncertainty regarding the duration and type of treatment effects. These overarching themes were consistent among patients from Belgium and Italy, suggesting that treatment aspects related to efficacy and safety as well as the psychological impact of lung cancer treatment are common areas of concern for patients, regardless of cultural background or country. Discussion: Our findings illustrate the value of using qualitative methods with patients to identify preferred treatment characteristics for advanced lung cancer. These could inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding treatment options.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study Protocol Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients.

Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Regulatory Science to 2025: An Analysis of Stakeholder Responses to the European Medicines Agency's Strategy.

The pace of innovation is accelerating, and so medicines regulators need to actively innovate regulatory science to protect human and animal health. This requires consideration and consultation across all stakeholder groups. To this end, the European Medicines Agency worked with stakeholders to draft its Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025 and launched it for public consultation. The responses to this consultation were analyzed qualitatively, using framework analysis and quantitatively, to derive stakeholders' aggregate scores for the proposed recommendations. This paper provides a comprehensive resource of stakeholder positions on key regulatory science topics of the coming 5 years. These stakeholder positions have implications for the development and regulatory approval of both human and veterinary medicines.

Improving Patient Involvement in the Lifecycle of Medicines: Insights From the EUPATI BE Survey.

EUPATI Belgium (EUPATI.be) is an informal gathering of local partners who are interested in improving patient involvement in healthcare innovation and medicines research and development. EUPATI.be brings together various stakeholders from different areas related to healthcare including patients, academia and industry. In doing so, we create an innovative collaborative approach where actors from different backgrounds work toward improving patient involvement in medical research, and putting the patient at the center of the Belgian healthcare system. Previously, we performed in-depth interviews with a small group of stakeholders on patient involvement. Here, we elaborate on our previous findings by using a nation-wide survey to inquire into Belgian stakeholders' perception on patient involvement. To this end, an electronic survey was available in French, Dutch and English, and accessible for 11 months. Twelve questions were asked, including 11 multiple choice questions and 1 open question. The latter was thematically analyzed according to the framework method. A total of 117 responses were registered and descriptive statistics were performed. The majority of respondents could be categorized into patient, academia and industry, whereas policy makers, payers, and healthcare professionals were underrepresented. We identified several barriers that hamper patient involvement, which were sometimes more reported by specific stakeholder groups. Next, we found that various stakeholders still consider patient involvement as a passive role, i.e., medical subject in a clinical trial. Respondents also reported that the role of the various stakeholders needed more clarification; this was also confirmed by the level of trust amongst the various stakeholders. Existing and the wish for more collaboration with the various stakeholders was reported by almost all respondents. Based on this survey, we can define the potential of involving patients in the medical research and development in the Belgian landscape. Our results will help to understand and tackle the various barriers that currently hamper patient involvement, whilst highlighting the need for a collaborative landscape from the multi-stakeholder perspective.

Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study.

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making. Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo. Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA. Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.

Factors and Situations Affecting the Value of Patient Preference Studies: Semi-Structured Interviews in Europe and the US.

Objectives: Patient preference information (PPI) is gaining recognition among the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies/payers for use in assessments and decision-making along the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to identify factors and situations that influence the value of patient preference studies (PPS) in decision-making along the MPLC according to different stakeholders. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with six different stakeholder groups (physicians, academics, industry representatives, regulators, HTA/payer representatives, and a combined group of patients, caregivers, and patient representatives) from seven European countries (the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Romania, Germany, France, and the Netherlands) and the United States. Framework analysis was performed using NVivo 11 software. Results: Fifteen factors affecting the value of PPS in the MPLC were identified. These are related to: study organization (expertise, financial resources, study duration, ethics and good practices, patient centeredness), study design (examining patient and/or other preferences, ensuring representativeness, matching method to research question, matching method to MPLC stage, validity and reliability, cognitive burden, patient education, attribute development), and study conduct (patients' ability/willingness to participate and preference heterogeneity). Three types of situations affecting the use of PPS results were identified (stakeholder acceptance, market situations, and clinical situations). Conclusion: The factors and situation types affecting the value of PPS, as identified in this study, need to be considered when designing and conducting PPS in order to promote the integration of PPI into decision-making along the MPLC.

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.