Healthcare Providers' and Pregnant People's Preferences for a Preventive to Protect Infants from Serious Illness Due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

We assessed the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive characteristics on the intentions of pregnant people and healthcare providers (HCPs) to protect infants with a maternal vaccine or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Pregnant people and HCPs who treated pregnant people and/or infants were recruited via convenience sample from a general research panel to complete a cross-sectional, web-based survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) wherein respondents chose between hypothetical RSV preventive profiles varying on five attributes (effectiveness, preventive type [maternal vaccine vs. mAb], injection recipient/timing, type of medical visit required to receive the injection, and duration of protection during RSV season) and a no-preventive option. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise was included to explore the impact of additional attributes on preventive preferences. Data were collected between October and November 2022. Attribute-level preference weights and relative importance (RI) were estimated. Overall, 992 pregnant people and 310 HCPs participated. A preventive (vs. none) was chosen 89.2% (pregnant people) and 96.0% (HCPs) of the time (DCE). Effectiveness was most important to preventive choice for pregnant people (RI = 48.0%) and HCPs (RI = 41.7%); all else equal, pregnant people (RI = 5.5%) and HCPs (RI = 7.2%) preferred the maternal vaccine over mAbs, although preventive type had limited influence on choice. Longer protection, protection starting at birth or the beginning of RSV season, and use for both pre-term and full-term babies were ranked highest in importance (BWS). Pregnant people and HCPs strongly preferred a preventive to protect infants against RSV (vs. none), underscoring the need to incorporate RSV preventives into routine care.

Priority Outcomes in Sickle Cell Disease Treatment: Co-Creation and Implementation of a Preference Exercise With Patients and Caregivers to Inform Drug Development.

Involving patients as co-leaders and co-creators in research is key to reflecting the patient's voice in decision-making. However, co-creation of patient-centered data to inform decisions is rare, especially in early drug development where patient input is critical to prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes and endpoints for use in clinical trials. Despite the industry's growing commitment to patient centricity, most patients are excluded from sharing their expertise in research; more inclusive methods of engaging patients as research partners are needed. We describe a collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and a patient organization in co-leading and co-creating a program to understand priorities of patients and caregivers for treatment features and outcomes in sickle cell disease to inform endpoint selection in clinical development. The results of this program will be used as a basis for continued interaction between patients and the sponsor and to inform ongoing clinical development and evidence-generation activities. This case study demonstrates an approach to meaningful collaborations between patient organizations and pharmaceutical companies aimed at including the patient's voice early in the medical product lifecycle.

Parent and Pediatrician Preferences for Type 1 Diabetes Screening in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to use a discrete-choice experiment methodology to understand the relative importance of the attributes of screening tests for type 1 diabetes among parents and pediatricians in the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Online surveys presented hypothetical screening test profiles from which respondents chose their preferred test profile. Survey attributes were based on likely screening test options and included the mode of administration, where and when the test was conducted, the type of education and monitoring available to lower the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and whether a treatment was available that would delay onset of insulin dependence. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit models. RESULTS: Parents placed the highest relative importance on monitoring programs that could reduce the risk of DKA to 1%, followed by treatment to delay onset of insulin dependence by 1 or 2 years, and, finally, avoiding a $50 out-of-pocket cost. Pediatricians placed equal importance on monitoring programs that reduced a patient's risk of DKA to 1% and on avoiding a $50 out-of-pocket cost for the screening test, followed by the option of a treatment to delay the onset of insulin dependence. The mode of administration and location and timing of the screening were much less important to parents and pediatricians. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and pediatricians preferred screening tests that were accompanied by education and monitoring plans to reduce the risk of DKA, had available treatment to delay type 1 diabetes, and had lower out-of-pocket costs.