RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) requires a multifaceted approach including psychosocial interventions and pharmacological treatment. This study evaluates preferences for specific attributes associated with different long-acting stimulant treatment among US adults with ADHD. METHODS: Patients completed an online, cross-sectional survey, incorporating a discrete choice experiment to assess preferences for attributes. RESULTS: Analyses included 200 adults with ADHD (mean age 33.0 years; 60% self-reporting moderate severity); the mean (SD) Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale-v1.1 score was 45.9 (12.4). Overall, patients valued speed of onset most and risk of rebound least. Three population groups with distinct preferences were identified: side effect-driven (n=69, 35%), quick onset-driven (n=47, 24%) and quick onset and long duration-driven (n=84, 42%). CONCLUSION: This study shows differences in how adults with ADHD value and assess benefit-risk trade-offs when considering the desired attributes of stimulant treatments, highlighting the importance of patient-physician shared decision-making to optimize the desired benefits of individualized treatment.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Several adjuvant phase III trials are evaluating cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) early-stage breast cancer (eBC). This study examines preferences for this combination regimen and ET alone among patients, oncologists, and payers in the United States. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was administered to patients, practicing oncologists, and payers. In the DCE, respondents selected between hypothetical treatment profiles with attributes associated with ET monotherapy and CDK4/6i + ET regimens. Each treatment alternative was defined by the following attributes: 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), nausea, diarrhea, neutropenia, alopecia, dosing schedule, and electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. Payers had the additional attribute of annual per-patient treatment cost. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute-level and relative attribute importance. RESULTS: For patients (n=300) and oncologists (n=200), iDFS was most important (2 to 3 times more important than the next most important attribute), followed by neutropenia and diarrhea risks for patients and oncologists, respectively. Patients and oncologists required an improvement in iDFS of 8.0 and 5.6 percentage-points, respectively, to accept an increase in diarrhea risk from 11% to 81%. Payers (n=60) viewed annual per-patient cost as most important for treatment access decision-making, closely followed by iDFS. Payers required an improvement in iDFS of 21.8 percentage-points to accept an increase in cost from $5,100 to $149,400. Across all stakeholder groups, dosing schedule, alopecia risk, and ECG monitoring were perceived as least important. CONCLUSION: Patients, oncologists, and payers expect a large absolute risk reduction in efficacy to offset the potential risks and costs of adding a CDK4/6i to current standard of care. An open discussion between all stakeholders is necessary to ensure that decision-making, whether at patient- or system-level, is informed by preferences for novel treatments, like CDK4/6is.