Information needs during cancer care: Qualitative research with locally advanced cervical cancer patients in Brazil, China, Germany, & the US.

Objective: This study aimed to identify the information needs and factors for making informed treatment decisions among a diverse group of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with LACC patients of diverse demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds within two years of their cancer diagnosis. Trained moderators asked open-ended questions about patients' cancer journeys. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo software to identify emergent themes. Results: In 2022, 92 LACC patients in the United States (n = 26), Brazil (n = 25), China (n = 25), and Germany (n = 16) participated in the study. Physicians were valued sources of information, providing patients with details on prognosis, treatment options, and side effects. While most patients trusted their physicians, one-third sought a second opinion to validate their diagnosis or find a more trusted physician.Most patients conducted their own research on treatment options, side effects, causes of LACC, symptoms, and others' experiences. Challenges to information searches included understanding medical terms, finding relevant information, and evaluating source credibility.Overall, patients felt knowledgeable enough to participate in treatment decisions, either by accepting the recommended treatment or collaborating with their physicians. Nearly one-third of patients desired a more significant role in the decision-making process. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of physicians providing LACC patients comprehensive and understandable information, while involving them in the decision-making process. Understanding LACC patients' motivations to seek information and their willingness to actively engage in treatment decisions can lead to improved patient satisfaction in their cancer care.

Patient preferences for attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine medications: Findings from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences among adults with migraine for differentiating attributes of injected or infused preventive treatment options and evaluate their importance in determining a treatment choice. BACKGROUND: Adults with migraine and health-care providers consider many factors when making treatment decisions. Injected or infused preventive migraine treatment options differ in several attributes, including mode of administration and dosing frequency, which may be preferentially selected or avoided by patients. Understanding a patient's preference is important for clinicians as they advise on various treatment options. METHODS: A total of 604 US adults diagnosed with migraine participated in an online survey that captured information on demographics, migraine history, and treatment preferences. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to evaluate participants' preferences for specific attributes of injected/infused preventive migraine therapies. The DCE data were utilized to estimate attribute importance (expressed as a percentage) and identify subgroups that had different distributions of preferences. RESULTS: In the overall migraine population, mode of administration (28.8%), durability of effectiveness (27.0%), and speed of onset (25.5%) had the highest relative importance, whereas administration setting (9.9%) and dosing frequency (8.8%) had the lowest. Four distinct subgroups were identified: Group 1 (n = 128) preferred self-injection administration and durability of effectiveness; Group 2 (n = 189) expressed aversion to cranial injections; Group 3 (n = 158) prioritized rapid speed of onset; and Group 4 (n = 129) favored health-care provider administration and durability of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Speed of onset, durability of effectiveness, and mode of administration are key moderators of treatment preference among US adults with migraine. Certain segments of the migraine population prioritize specific treatment attributes over others, with intravenous infusion not considered a barrier in three of four identified segments. Clinicians can best help their patients find the right medication if they understand which medication attributes are most and least important to them.

Burden, Control, and Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis in 2021: A United States Patient Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent data on unmet needs in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in the US are not available. OBJECTIVE: To describe disease control, quality of life (QoL), and treatment satisfaction in a United States population with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: Cross-sectional 2021 survey conducted among US patients recruited to an online survey from Kantar e-profiles, their panel partners, and Global Perspectives. Adults with self-reported, physician-diagnosed AD completed the primary survey. Of those reporting moderate to severe AD, a subset, including patients who “strongly disagreed,” “somewhat disagreed,” or were “neutral” on the statement “my eczema is adequately controlled” (“inadequately controlled”) with varying experience with approved biologic treatment (dupilumab), completed a second, enriched survey. Outcome measures evaluated included self-reported disease control and severity and validated measures including Patient-Oriented Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP), and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). RESULTS: Of 3,285 patients who participated in the primary survey, 1,935 self-reported moderate-to-severe AD, 979 (51%) of whom reported inadequate control. A total of 371 completed the enriched survey, leading to an analytic sample with 87 controlled patients and 284 inadequately controlled patients (178/284 inadequately controlled patients never received dupilumab, 23 previously received it, and 83 were currently receiving it). Mean RECAP, PO-SCORAD, and DLQI scores were significantly worse (P<0.01) for inadequately controlled vs controlled patients: 7.26 vs 13.9; 38.3 vs 26.9; and 9.9 vs 7.0, respectively. Mean TSQM-9 scores for inadequately controlled vs controlled patients were significantly worse across all domains—effectiveness, convenience, and global satisfaction (P<0.01): 45.5 vs 69.5, 62.3 vs 72.5, 48.3 vs 69.3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found about half of the patients had inadequate control of their disease. This may partially be due to underuse of systemic biologics in eligible patients. There remains an unmet need for additional education on current and new systemic biologics that could allow patients to achieve better AD control, improved QoL, and greater overall treatment satisfaction. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(2):119-131. doi:10.36849/JDD.7071.

Benefit-risk trade-offs in treatment choice in advanced HER2 negative breast cancer: patient and oncologist perspectives.

Aim: To evaluate which treatment attributes US patients and oncologists prioritize in HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods: Preferences were assessed via a discrete choice experiment. Also, treatment goal statements were rated on an agreement scale. Results: Patients (n = 169) most valued improving overall survival (OS), followed by improving nausea and neuropathy. Oncologists (n = 117) most valued improving OS, followed by neuropathy and progression-free survival. Regarding treatment goals, oncologists (67%) perceived that patients are more focused on efficacy than quality of life; fewer patients (29%) agreed with this statement; 81% of oncologists and 51% of patients agreed that patients prefer oral treatment. Conclusion: Patients and oncologists were willing to accept increases in toxicities in exchange for efficacy improvements in HER2 negative ABC.

The goal of this study was to understand the preferences of patients and physicians for the benefits and risks associated with the treatment of advanced breast cancer that expresses normal amounts of the HER2 protein (termed as HER2 negative). Respondents completed an exercise where they compared two treatment options at a time that varied in their level of effectiveness and their potential for certain side effects and then selected the treatment option they most preferred. From this exercise, the treatment features that matter the most to patients and physicians were discovered. The most important treatment features for patients were lengthening life expectancy, decreasing the chance of experiencing nausea affecting appetite, and decreasing the chance of experiencing nerve damage involving numbness and/or pain, possibly severe, in hands and feet which may limit daily activities. The most important treatment features for physicians were lengthening life expectancy, decreasing the change of experiencing nerve damage involving numbness and/or pain, possibly severe, in hands and feet which may limit daily activities, and lengthening the time that cancer remains stable and does not worsen. Patients and physicians also rated how much they agreed with statements about their goals for treatment. While 67% of oncologists believed that their patients are more focused on killing the cancer than their quality of life, only 27% of patients were more focused on killing the cancer than their quality of life.

Patient and Caregiver Preferences for First-Line Treatments of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

PURPOSE: The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinomas (mNSCLC) treatment has presented more care options. Therefore, it is important to identify the benefit-risk trade-offs patients and caregivers are willing to make among potential treatment options. This study quantified the preferences of patients and caregivers for attributes of mNSCLC treatment. METHODS: Patients with mNSCLC and caregivers completed an online survey assessing preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Respondents chose between hypothetical treatment profiles, with varying levels for 7 attributes associated with first-line treatment, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, select adverse events (AEs), and regimen (caregivers). Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate attribute-level preference weights. RESULTS: Patients (n = 308) and caregivers (n = 166) most valued increasing OS from 11 to 30 months, followed by decreasing the risk of a serious AE (grade 3/4) that may lead to hospitalization from 70% to 18%. These attributes were over twice as important to both sets of respondents as the other attributes measured. Patients and caregivers would accept increases in the risks of a serious AE (grade 3/4) from 18% to 70% and all grades nausea from 10% to 69% if OS increased by 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively. The least valued attributes were all grades of pneumonitis (patients) and all grades of skin rash (caregivers). CONCLUSION: Patients and caregivers are willing to make trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity and may require up to 1.5 years of increased OS to accept a higher risk of AEs. These results can provide guidance to oncologists when engaging in shared-decision making discussions.

Patients' and oncologists' preferences for second-line maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Aim: To understand the preferences of US patients and oncologists for PARP inhibitors as second-line maintenance (2LM) for epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of treatment attributes. Results: The most valued attributes were risk of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; patients, n = 204) and progression-free survival (PFS; oncologists, n = 151). To accept a 37% increased risk of grade 3/4 AEs, PFS would need to increase by 27.9 months (patients) and 6.3 months (oncologists). The least valued attributes were dosing form/frequency (patients) and grade 3/4 anemia risk (oncologists). Conclusion: Patients' and oncologists' willingness to make benefit-risk trade-offs in the 2LM setting suggests that the PFS gains observed in selected studies of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA-mutated disease are worth the toxicity risk.

Plain language summary Maintenance therapy is a treatment option intended to keep ovarian cancer from coming back or getting worse for as long as possible after responding to chemotherapy. PARP inhibitors are a new type of maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. This study aimed to understand the patients' and physicians' preferences for the benefits and risks associated with different PARP inhibitors used as maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. Participants were asked to compare various treatment options based on their different safety profiles, effectiveness and form of medication (e.g., three capsules by mouth once a day versus two tablets by mouth twice a day), and then choose the treatment they most preferred. Through this exercise, the treatment features that mattered most to patients and physicians were identified. The most important treatment feature for patients was decreasing the chance of experiencing a serious side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization. In contrast, physicians valued lengthening the time that a cancer remains stable and does not worsen. To accept a 37% higher chance of experiencing a side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization, patients expect their cancer to remain stable and not worsen for an additional 28 months. This was a large difference from the 6 months that the physicians would consider as acceptable. The least important treatment features for patients are the amount of pills required per dose, the form of the given medication (e.g., tablet vs capsule) and the schedule of taking the treatment. On the other hand, physicians were least concerned about lowering the risk of experiencing low blood counts that, requiring medical intervention.

Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Novel Agents in First-Line Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Commonalities and Disconnects.

PURPOSE: Treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has changed dramatically with the approval of novel agents. Information regarding how patients and oncologists make trade-offs across attributes of novel therapies is limited. The purpose of this study was to understand how variations in attributes impact treatment choice among patients and oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 371 participants (patients [n=220] and oncologists [n=151]) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify preferences for first-line (1L) CLL treatment with novel agents; participants chose between hypothetical treatment profiles consisting of eight attributes with varying levels taken from published literature. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate attribute level preference weights. The weights were used to compute relative importance, a measure of how influential an attribute is to treatment choice. RESULTS: Increasing 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) from 75% to 95% had the greatest impact on preferences in 1L CLL treatment, accounting for 40% and 30% of the variation in preferences among patients and oncologists, respectively. Risk differences in atrial fibrillation (AF), infection, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were also important to patients and oncologists. Among both groups, risk differences in tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and bleeding were least influential in treatment choice. Oncologists required 2-4 times higher increases in 2-year PFS than patients to accept increased risks of AF, discontinuation due to AEs, bleeding, TLS, and arthralgia/myalgia. CONCLUSION: Patient-oncologist communication may be improved by a more focused discussion on the risks of AEs, relative to treatment outcomes, with patient goals in mind.

Perceived barriers related to testing, management and treatment of HCV infection among physicians prescribing opioid agonist therapy: The C-SCOPE Study.

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate perceived barriers related to HCV testing, management and treatment among physicians practicing in clinics offering opioid agonist treatment (OAT). C-SCOPE was a study consisting of a self-administered survey among physicians practicing at clinics providing OAT in Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States between April and May 2017. A 5-point Likert scale (1 = not a barrier, 3 = moderate barrier, 5 = extreme barrier) was used to measure responses to perceived barriers for HCV testing, evaluation and treatment across the domains of the health system, clinic and patient. Among the 203 physicians enrolled (40% USA, 45% Europe, 14% Australia/Canada), 21% were addiction medicine specialists, 29% psychiatrists and 69% were metro/urban. OAT physicians in this study reported poor access to on-site venepuncture (35%), point-of-care HCV testing (16%), and noninvasive liver disease assessment (25%). Only 30% of OAT physicians reported personally treating HCV infection. Major perceived health system barriers to HCV management included the lack of funding for noninvasive liver disease testing, long wait times to see an HCV specialist, lack of funding for new HCV therapies, and reimbursement restrictions based on drug/alcohol use. Major perceived clinic barriers included the lack of peer support programmes and/or HCV case managers to facilitate linkage to care, the need to refer people off-site for noninvasive liver disease staging, the lack of support for on-site phlebotomy and the lack of on-site delivery of HCV therapy. This study highlights several important modifiable barriers to enhance HCV testing, evaluation and treatment among PWID attending OAT clinics.

Perceptions and self-reported competency related to testing, management and treatment of hepatitis C virus infection among physicians prescribing opioid agonist treatment: The C-SCOPE study.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated competency related to HCV testing, management and treatment among physicians practicing in clinics offering opioid agonist treatment (OAT). METHODS: C-SCOPE is a study consisting of a self-administered survey among physicians practicing at clinics providing OAT in Australia, Canada, Europe and USA between April-May 2017. A 7-point scale was used to measure < average competence (score >4 of 7) related to HCV testing, management and treatment. RESULTS: Among 203 physicians (40% USA, 45% Europe, 14% Australia/Canada) 21% were addiction medicine specialists, 29% psychiatrists, and 70% were metro/urban [mean PWID managed, 51; years of experience, 11]. The majority perceived HCV testing (82%) and treatment (85%) among PWID as important. The minority reported < average competence with respect to regular screening (12%) and interpretation of HCV test results (14%), while greater proportions reported < average competence in advising patients about new HCV therapies (28%), knowledge of new treatments (37%), and treatment/management of HCV (40%). In adjusted analysis, factors independently associated with < average self-reported competency related to the ability to treat HCV and manage side effects included fewer years in medical practice, fewer numbers of patients treated for HCV infection in the past six months, not having obtained information on screening, diagnosing or treatment of HCV, not having attended any training on HCV in the past year, and not having read or consulted AASLD/IDSA, EASL or other guidelines for HCV. CONCLUSION: Physicians treating HCV infection among PWID attending OAT clinics recognized the importance of HCV testing and treatment. However, self-perceived competency related to HCV management and treatment was low, highlighting the importance of improved HCV education and training among physicians practicing in clinics offering OAT.