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.

The Role of Pharmaceutical Innovation in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Diseases.

Background: Over the last 25 years, clinical practice guidelines have emerged as a means to standardize and improve care. As pharmaceutical innovations develop, guidelines are updated to incorporate new interventions. However, the extent to which pharmacotherapies are represented as treatment options in guideline recommendations has not been well elucidated. This study aimed to quantify the role pharmacotherapy has played in clinical practice guidelines across a range of chronic diseases over the past 20 years. Methods: Clinical practice guidelines published from 2000 to 2021 were identified for five chronic diseases: ischemic heart disease (IHD), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Guidelines were reviewed and data on treatment recommendations were collected, including the type of intervention, line of therapy, and, for pharmacotherapies, year of regulatory approval and year of inclusion in guidelines. Results: In total, 92 clinical practice guidelines were reviewed. Among the 184 discrete recommended interventions across the five disease areas, 146 (79.3%) were pharmacotherapies, 21 (11.4%) were behavioral modifications, 6 (3.3%) were surgical interventions, and 11 (6%) were other interventions. Across guidelines, when a line of therapy was specified, behavioral modifications and pharmacotherapies were most frequently recommended as first-line interventions, whereas surgical interventions were more often recommended for subsequent lines of treatment. The time from regulatory approval of novel pharmacotherapies to inclusion in guideline recommendations varied considerably by disease area and geography. Conclusions: Across the reviewed disease areas, behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapies are shown to be critical components of clinical practice. Over the last 20 years, novel pharmaceutical innovations have been incorporated into clinical practice guideline recommendations; however, with varying speeds of adoption. Given the increasing pace of pharmacologic innovation, timely updates of clinical practice guidelines are critical to evolving the standard of care and practicing evidence-based medicine.

Expert Consensus on Comprehensive Early Rhythm Control in Addition to Guideline-Based Care for Atrial Fibrillation: A Modified Delphi Survey.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) practice guidelines recommend a rhythm-control strategy to improve symptoms and quality of life, noting the side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation. Emerging evidence indicates that comprehensive early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation is associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes versus the usual care. Using an online modified Delphi survey approach, perspectives and expert consensus among electrophysiologists were examined through a series of ranking and likelihood questions around treatment decision-making on (1) the use of comprehensive early rhythm-control strategies in patients with AF based on guidelines and emerging research and (2) treatment selection factors. A panel of 17 electrophysiologists reached a consensus on using early rhythm control (median 90, interquartile range 14) based on the view that early intervention improved cardiovascular outcomes (mean rank 1.6 of 3, 82% within 1 SD) and symptoms (1.8 of 3, 41%). AF-related symptoms were identified as the most important in making a treatment initiation decision (1.1 of 7, 88%), followed by AF type (2.5 of 7, 82%). Participants were most likely to initiate treatment at AF symptom onset (median 80; interquartile range 6). In making treatment selection decisions, participants ranked short-term/long-term safety (1.9 of 7, 88%) and efficacy (1.8 of 7, 53%) as the top 2 considerations. In conclusion, experts were in favor of early rhythm control; however, additional research is needed to address the role that early rhythm-control strategies play in current AF treatment management algorithms.