Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Compared with early stages (eBC) metastatic BC (mBC) is incurable. In mBC, aggressive treatment may increase the duration of survival but may also cause severe treatment side effects. A better understanding how patients with BC value different aspects of drug therapy might improve treatment effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise studies evaluating patient preferences for drug therapy of BC and to compare preferences of patients with eBC and mBC. METHODS: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 22 June 2023. All studies published to this point were considered. Original studies reporting patient preferences on BC drug therapy determined by any type of choice experiment were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the effect measures presented as relative importance ratings, trade-offs (required benefit to make a therapy worthwhile) or monetary values of the treatment attributes was reported for each study. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was performed using the checklist for observational studies from the STROBE Statement and the checklist from 'Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide'. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022377031). RESULTS: A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis evaluating the preferences of patients with eBC (n = 18), mBC (n = 10) or any stage BC (n = 6) on, for example, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, hormonal therapy or CKD4/6-inhibitors using different types of choice experiments. Regardless of the stage, most patients valued treatment effectiveness in terms of survival gains higher than potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Treatment cost, mode of administration, treatment regimen and monitoring aspects were considered as least important treatment attributes. In addition, preferences concerning 16 different types of ADRs were described, showing high heterogeneity within BC stages. Yet, comparable results across BC stages were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the stage, patients with BC consistently valued survival gains as the most important attribute and were willing to accept the risk of potential ADRs. Incorporating patient preferences in shared decision making may improve the effectiveness of interventions by enhancing adherence to drug therapy in patients suffering from BC.

Preferences of patients with breast cancer for drug therapy play a crucial role in treatment efficacy, satisfaction and adherence. In this systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines, 34 studies were analysed to determine patient preferences at different stages of breast cancer, comparing early stage and metastatic disease. Regardless of stage, patients with breast cancer consistently prioritised survival benefit as the most important treatment feature. This universal emphasis on survival held true even in the face of potential side effects, with patients willing to accept the associated risks. Conversely, factors unrelated to efficacy, such as the cost of treatment, route of administration, characteristics of the treatment regimen and monitoring aspects, were considered less important in treatment decisions. The study revealed a nuanced landscape of patient preferences, with greater variation within breast cancer stages than between them. While survival remained an unwavering priority, the variability in expressed preferences emphasises the individual nature of patient perspectives. In conclusion, incorporating patient preferences, particularly those that emphasise the importance of survival, into shared decision-making processes is a critical factor in improving treatment adherence. This patient-centred approach is likely to improve the overall effectiveness of breast cancer treatment and highlights the need for tailored strategies that take into account the individual preferences of patients at different stages of the disease.

Development and pilot-testing of an evidence-based quality indicator set for home mechanical ventilation care: the OVER-BEAS project.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients depending on home mechanical ventilation (HMV) has increased substantially in Germany in recent years. These patients receive long-term care in different nursing facilities (nursing home, shared living community, private home). However, there are limited data available on the quality of care of HMV patients. The aim of the OVER-BEAS project was to identify quality indicators (QIs) of HMV care using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: A multidisciplinary board consisting of professionals and experts of HMV provision compiled a set of QIs between March and September 2019. In a structured, transparent process a set of QIs covering structures, processes and outcome of HMV patient's care were proposed and evaluated based on the best available evidence. QIs were defined as relevant, reliable and valid measurements of the quality of HMV care and furthermore to be comprehensive and applicable in practice. RESULTS: The experts proposed 40 QIs and consented a final set of 26 QIs. Based on the final set, questionnaires to document the QIs were developed: (1) to assess the quality and describe the structure of the nursing facility; and (2) to gather information on patient-related processes and outcomes. The feasibility of the questionnaires was tested in 5 nursing facilities treating HMV patients. The remarks from the nursing specialists were categorised in three groups: (1) term missing accuracy, (2) problem of understanding, and (3) not documented or documented elsewhere. Mean documentation time by the nursing specialists for one patient was 15 min. Based on this feedback, the questionnaires were finalised. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed a set of QIs relating to long-term HMV care and developed two questionnaires to collect this information. In a pilot study, we found the set of questionnaires to be feasible in assessing the quality of HMV care according to current evidence. The development of standardised evidence-based QIs to evaluate HMV care is a step towards implementing a standardised quality assurance program to document the quality of care of HMV patients.