Use of Patient Preferences Data Regarding Multiple Risks to Inform Regulatory Decisions.

Background and Objectives. Risk-tolerance measures from patient-preference studies typically focus on individual adverse events. We recently introduced an approach that extends maximum acceptable risk (MAR) calculations to simultaneous maximum acceptable risk thresholds (SMART) for multiple treatment-related risks. We extend these methods to include the computation and display of confidence intervals and apply the approach to 3 published discrete-choice experiments to evaluate its utility to inform regulatory decisions. Methods. We generate MAR estimates and SMART curves and compare them with trial-based benefit-risk profiles of select treatments for depression, psoriasis, and thyroid cancer. Results. In the depression study, SMART curves with 70% to 95% confidence intervals portray which combinations of 2 adverse events would be considered acceptable. In the psoriasis example, the asymmetric confidence intervals for the SMART curve indicate that relying on independent MARs versus SMART curves when there are nonlinear preferences can lead to decisions that could expose patients to greater risks than they would accept. The thyroid cancer application shows an example in which the clinical incidence of each of 3 adverse events is lower than the single-event MARs for the expected treatment benefit, yet the collective risk profile surpasses acceptable levels when considered jointly. Limitations. Nonrandom sample of studies. Conclusions. When evaluating conventional MARs in which the observed incidences are near the estimated MARs or where preferences demonstrate diminishing marginal disutility of risk, conventional MAR estimates will overstate risk acceptance, which could lead to misinformed decisions, potentially placing patients at greater risk of adverse events than they would accept. Implications. The SMART method, herein extended to include confidence intervals, provides a reproducible, transparent evidence-based approach to enable decision makers to use data from discrete-choice experiments to account for multiple adverse events. Highlights: Estimates of maximum acceptable risk (MAR) for a defined treatment benefit can be useful to inform regulatory decisions; however, the conventional metric considers one adverse event at a time.This article applies a new approach known as SMART (simultaneous maximum acceptable risk thresholds) that accounts for multiple adverse events to 3 published discrete-choice experiments.Findings reveal that conventional MARs could lead decision makers to accept a treatment based on individual risks that would not be acceptable if multiple risks are considered simultaneously.

How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Because immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders' values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features. METHODS: We developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12-23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18-25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis. RESULTS: Latent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide 'peace of mind' benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.

Method for Calculating the Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Threshold (SMART) from Discrete-Choice Experiment Benefit-Risk Studies.

BACKGROUND: Medical decisions require weighing expected benefits of treatment against multiple adverse outcomes under uncertainty (i.e., risks) that must be accepted as a bundle. However, conventional maximum acceptable risk (MAR) estimates derived from discrete-choice experiment benefit-risk studies evaluate the acceptance of individual risks, assuming other risks are fixed, potentially leading decision makers to misinterpret levels of risk acceptance. DESIGN: Using simulations and a published discrete-choice experiment, we demonstrate a method for identifying multidimensional risk-tolerance measures given a treatment level of benefit. RESULTS: Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Thresholds (SMART) represents combinations of risks that would be jointly accepted in exchange for specific treatment benefits. The framework shows how the expectation of utility associated with treatments that involve multiple risks are related even when preferences for potential adverse events are independent. We find that the form of the marginal effects of adverse-event probabilities on the expected utility of treatment determines the magnitude of differences between SMART and conventional single-outcome MAR estimates. LIMITATIONS: Preferences for potential adverse events not considered in a study or preferences for adverse-event attributes held constant in risk-tolerance calculations may affect estimated risk tolerance. Further research is needed to understand the right balance between realistically reflecting clinical treatments with many potential adverse events and the cognitive burden of evaluating risk-risk tradeoffs in research and in practice. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SMART analysis should be considered in preference studies evaluating the joint acceptance of multiple potential adverse events. HIGHLIGHTS: Conventional approaches to calculate maximum-acceptable risk (MAR) using discrete-choice experiment data account for 1 adverse-event risk at a time, requiring that decision makers infer the acceptability of treatments when patients are exposed to multiple risks simultaneously.The Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Threshold (SMART) maps combinations of adverse-event risks that would be jointly acceptable given a specific treatment benefit and provides a transparent and precise portrayal of acceptance of multiple risks.Risk levels that would be accepted using individual MAR estimates might not be acceptable when simultaneous risks are considered, especially when marginal expected disutility of risk is decreasing nonlinearly with risk probabilities.Preference researchers should calculate SMARTs in any discrete-choice study in which 2 or more adverse-event risks are presented, particularly if risk preferences are nonlinear.

Primary Immune Deficiency: Patients' Preferences for Replacement Immunoglobulin Therapy.

Purpose: Immunoglobulin (Ig) replacement therapy is an important life-saving treatment modality for patients with primary antibody immune deficiency disorders (PAD). IVIG and SCIg are suitable alternatives to treat patients with PAD but vary in key ways. Existing evidence on patient preferences for Ig treatments given the complexities associated with IVIG and SCIg treatment is limited and fails to account for variations in preferences across patients. For this reason, we sought to evaluate PAD patient preferences for features of IVIG and SCIg across different patient characteristics. Materials and Methods: 119 PAD patients completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey. The DCE asked respondents to make choices between carefully constructed treatment alternatives described in terms of generic treatment features. Choices from the DCE were analyzed to determine the relative influence of attribute changes on treatment preferences. We used subgroup analysis to evaluate systematic variations in preferences by patients' age, gender, time since diagnosis, and treatment experience. Results: Patients were primarily concerned about the duration of treatment side effects, but preferences were heterogeneous. This was particularly true around administration features. Time since diagnosis was associated with an increase in patients' concerns with the number of needles required per infusion. Also, patients appear to prefer the kind of therapy they are currently using which could be the result of properly aligned patient preferences or evidence of patient adaptive behavior. Conclusions: Heterogeneity in preferences for Ig replacement treatments suggests that a formal shared decision making process could have an important role in improving patient care.

Women's Willingness to Accept Risks of Medication for Inflammatory Bowel Disease During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) face difficult decisions regarding treatment during pregnancy: while the majority of IBD medications are safe, there is substantial societal pressure to avoid exposures during pregnancy. However, discontinuation of IBD medications risks a disease flare occurring during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study quantified women's knowledge about pregnancy and IBD and their willingness to accept the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes to avoid disease activity or medication use during pregnancy. METHODS: Women with IBD recruited from four centers completed an online discrete-choice experiment stated-preference study including eight choice tasks and the Crohn's and Colitis Pregnancy Knowledge questionnaire. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preferences for both the respondent personally and what the respondent thought most women would prefer. We also tested for systematically different preferences among individuals with different demographic and personal characteristics, including IBD knowledge. The primary outcome was the maximum acceptable risk of premature birth, birth defects, or miscarriage that women with IBD were willing to accept to avoid (1) taking an IBD medication or (2) having a disease flare during pregnancy. RESULTS: Among 230 respondents, women would accept, on average, up to a 4.9% chance of miscarriage to avoid a disease flare. On average, there were no statistically significant differences in women's preferences for continuing versus avoiding medication in the absence of a flare. However, prior understanding of IBD and pregnancy significantly affected preferences for IBD medication use during pregnancy: women with "poor knowledge" would accept up to a 6.4% chance of miscarriage to avoid IBD medication use during pregnancy, whereas women with "adequate knowledge" would accept up to a 5.1% chance of miscarriage in order to remain on their medication. Respondents' personal treatment preferences did not differ from their assessment of other women's preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Women with IBD demonstrated a strong preference for avoiding disease activity during pregnancy. Knowledge regarding pregnancy and IBD was a strong modifier of preferences for continuation of IBD medications during pregnancy. These findings point to an important opportunity for intervention to improve disease control through education to increase medication adherence and alleviate unnecessary fears about IBD medication use during pregnancy.

Patients' Willingness to Accept Mitral Valve Procedure-Associated Risks Varies Across Severity of Heart Failure Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drugs and Radiological Health issued Guidance in 2016 on generating patient preference information to aid evaluation of medical devices. Consistent with this guidance, we aimed to provide quantitative patient preference evidence on benefit-risk tradeoffs relevant to transcatheter mitral valve repair versus medical therapy for patients with heart failure and symptomatic secondary mitral regurgitation. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey was designed to quantify patients' tolerance for 30-day mortality or serious bleeding risks to achieve improvements in physical functioning or reductions in heart failure hospitalizations. Two samples were recruited: an online US panel of individuals reporting a diagnosis of heart failure (n=244) and patients with heart failure treated at Duke University Health System (n=175). Random-effects logit regression was used to model treatment choices as a function of benefit and risk levels. RESULTS: Across both samples, approximately one-quarter (23.5%) consistently chose device profiles offering the higher level of physical functioning despite mortality and bleeding risks as high as 10%. Among respondents who at least once chose a device profile offering a lower level of functioning, improvement in physical functioning equivalent to a change from New York Heart Association class IV to III was ≈6 times more preferred than a change from New York Heart Association class III to II. Estimated discrete-choice experiment utility gains and losses revealed that respondents would accept up to a 9.7 percentage-point (95% CI, 8.2%-13.3%) increase in risk of 30-day mortality with devices that could improve functioning from New York Heart Association class IV to III, or up to 2.0% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.7%) for an improvement from New York Heart Association class III to II. CONCLUSIONS: Severity of heart failure symptoms influences patients' willingness to accept risks associated with mitral valve medical devices. These findings can inform shared decision-making discussions with patients who are being evaluated for transcatheter mitral valve repair.

Effective Partnering in Conducting Benefit-Risk Patient Preference Studies: Perspectives From a Patient Advocacy Organization, a Pharmaceutical Company, and Academic Stated-Preference Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Formal incorporation of patients' perspectives is becoming increasingly important in medical product development and decision making. This article shares practical advice regarding how patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academic experts in stated-preference research can effectively partner on benefit-risk patient preference studies. METHODS: The authors partnered on a benefit-risk patient preference study related to the treatment of psoriasis. The authors from Duke Clinical Research Institute also share their experiences in collaborating with numerous other organizations in conducting benefit-risk patient preference studies. RESULTS: Upon initiation of the study partnership with appropriate experts, training is important to ensure all collaborators have a common understanding of the methodology, what objectives stated-preference methods can support, and expectations for the project. To the extent possible, partners should align on and document relevant clinical and logistical details prior to study implementation. During study implementation, partners should use good communication practices and document and maintain a record of any changes to the original plan. Presentation of the study results should be tailored to the particular audience, with the appropriate partner leading the presentation based on its format and audience. CONCLUSION: Partners from patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia can effectively collaborate on benefit-risk patient preference studies with sufficient planning and ongoing communication. This article is a call for action for other organizations to engage in sharing of experiences regarding effective partnering in quantifying patient preferences in medical product development.

Patient Preferences for Device-Aided Treatments Indicated for Advanced Parkinson Disease.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment for advanced Parkinson disease (PD) uncontrolled with oral medication includes device-aided therapies such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and continuous levodopa-carbidopa infusion to the duodenum via a portable pump. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to quantify patient preferences for attributes of these device-aided treatments. METHODS: We administered a Web-enabled survey to 401 patients in the United States. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was used to evaluate patients' willingness to accept tradeoffs among efficacy, tolerability, and convenience of alternative treatments. DCE data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. Best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to elicit the relative importance of device-specific attributes. Conditional logit was used to analyze the BWS data. We tested for differences in preferences among subgroups of patients. RESULTS: Improving ability to think clearly was twice as important as a 6-hour-per-day improvement in control of movement symptoms. After controlling for efficacy, treatment delivered via portable infusion pump was preferred over DBS, and both devices were preferred to oral therapy with poor symptom control. Patients were most concerned about device attributes relating to risk of stroke, difficulty thinking, and neurosurgery. Avoiding surgery to insert a wire in the brain was more important than avoiding surgery to insert a tube into the small intestine. Some differences in preferences among subgroups were statistically, but not qualitatively, significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarifies the patient perspective in therapeutic choices for advanced PD. These findings may help improve communication between patients and providers and also provide evidence on patient preferences to inform regulatory and access decisions.

What is clearance worth? Patients' stated risk tolerance for psoriasis treatments.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide quantitative evidence of patients' tolerance for therapeutic risks associated with psoriasis treatments that could offer psoriasis improvements beyond the PASI 75 benchmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a discrete-choice experiment in which respondents chose between competing psoriasis treatments characterized by benefits (i.e. reduced plaque severity, reduced plaque area), risks (i.e. 10-year risk of tuberculosis, 10-year risk of death from infection), and treatment regimen. We analyzed choice data using random-parameters logit models for psoriasis affecting the body, face, or hands. RESULTS: Of 927 eligible members of the National Psoriasis Foundation who completed the survey, 28% were unwilling to accept any greater risk of treatment-related infection mortality. Among the remaining 72%, respondents were willing to accept higher risks of infection-related mortality associated with treatment to completely remove plaques covering only 1% of the body, compared to reducing lesions from 10 to 1% of the affected area. This finding was more pronounced for lesions on the face. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients placed greater value on eliminating even very small plaques compared to avoiding treatment-related risks. The perceived importance of complete versus near-complete clearance was stronger than previously documented.

Benefit-risk tradeoff preferences for chronic hand eczema treatments.

Hand eczema affects approximately 16% of the US population. The long-term prognosis is poor, and 5-7% experience severe chronic hand eczema (sCHE) that interferes with daily activities. Treatments for CHE may be ineffective or associated with adverse events (AEs) that may dissuade patients from pursuing or continuing treatment. For quantification of patient experiences and benefit-risk preferences for outcomes associated with CHE treatments, a web-based discrete choice experiment survey was administered to patients in the United States with a self-reported physician diagnosis of CHE and severe symptoms not resolved with topical agents. Respondents answered a series of treatment choice questions, each requiring evaluation of a pair of hypothetical profiles of medications for sCHE defined by efficacy and risk of several AEs. Improvement in CHE clearing of 25-50% was rated from 1.5 to 3.1 times as important as eliminating a 5% risk of permanent bone problems. The mean maximum acceptable risk of permanent vision problems in exchange for an improvement in CHE clearing of 25-50% ranged from 3.4% to 4.8%. This study demonstrated that patients with CHE rated efficacy improvements associated with treatment of sCHE as more important than eliminating the risks of specific AEs.

Patient Benefit-Risk Tradeoffs for Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Treatments.

Background. The aims of this study were to assess patients' preferences to wait or start systemic treatment and understand how patients would make tradeoffs between certain severe adverse events (AEs) and additional months of progression-free survival (PFS). Materials and Methods. Adults in France, Germany, and Spain with a diagnosis of DTC and who have had at least one RAI treatment completed a direct-elicitation question and a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) online. The direct-elicitation question asked respondents whether they would opt out of treatment when their tumor is RAI-R. In the DCE, respondents chose between 12 pairs of hypothetical RAI-R DTC treatment profiles. Profiles were defined by magnitudes of efficacy (PFS) and safety (severe hand-foot skin reaction [HFSR], severe proteinuria, and severe hypertension). A main-effects random-parameters logit model was estimated. Results. 134 patients completed the survey. Most patients (86.6%) opted for treatment rather than "wait and see" decision. Patients placed a greater weight on the risk of severe hypertension than the risk of proteinuria and HFSR. Conclusions. DTC patients showed preference toward treatment for RAI-R DTC over watchful waiting. Patients' concerns about the risk of severe hypertension appeared to have had a greater effect on patients' choice than severe proteinuria or HFSR.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients' Willingness to Accept Medication Risk to Avoid Future Disease Relapse.

OBJECTIVES: Biomarkers, endoscopy and imaging tests can identify patients at increased risk for early recurrence of symptomatic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients may be unwilling to accept additional medical therapy risks related to therapy escalation to avoid a future disease relapse. We sought to quantify IBD patients' willingness to accept medication risk to avoid future disease relapse. METHODS: We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among 202 patients with IBD who were offered choices of therapies with varying risks of lymphoma and infection, and varying time to next IBD relapse. Random parameters logit was used to estimate patients' willingness to accept tradeoffs among treatment features in selecting medication therapy to avoid future disease relapse. RESULTS: To avoid a disease relapse over the next 5 years, IBD patients were willing to accept an average of a 28% chance of a serious infection; and an average of 1.8% chance of developing lymphoma. These results did not significantly change when patients were offered 10 years until their next disease relapse, but were lower (11 and 0.7%, respectively) when offered 1.5 years until the next disease relapse. Patients with active disease symptoms were significantly less willing to accept medication risk for time in remission. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients are willing to accept high levels of lymphoma and serious infection risk to maintain disease remission. These preferences are congruent with the treatment paradigms emphasizing mucosal healing and early aggressive therapy and highlight patients' strong preferences for therapies resulting in durable remission of at least 5 years.

Patient preferences for surgical versus medical therapy for ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Therapy options for mesalamine-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) include immunosuppressive medications or surgery. Chronic immunosuppressive therapy increases risks of infection and cancer, whereas surgery produces a permanent change in bowel function. We sought to quantify the willingness of patients with UC to accept the risks of chronic immunosuppression to avoid colectomy. METHODS: We conducted a state-of-the-art discrete-choice experiment among 293 patients with UC who were offered a choice of medication or surgical treatments with different features. Random parameters logit was used to estimate patients' willingness to accept trade-offs among treatment features in selecting surgery versus medical treatment. RESULTS: A desire to avoid surgery and the surgery type (ostomy versus J-pouch) influenced patients' choices more than a specified range of 10-year mortality risks from lymphoma or infection, or disease activity (mild versus remission). To avoid an ostomy, patients were willing to accept a >5% 10-year risk of dying from lymphoma or infection from medical therapy, regardless of medication efficacy. However, data on patients' stated choice indicated perceived equivalence between J-pouch surgery and incompletely effective medical therapy. Patient characteristics and disease history influenced patients' preferences regarding surgery versus medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with UC are willing to accept relatively high risks of fatal complications from medical therapy to avoid a permanent ostomy and to achieve durable clinical remission. However, patients view J-pouch surgery, but not permanent ileostomy, as an acceptable therapy for refractory UC in which medical therapy is unable to induce a durable remission.

Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature.

Decisions regarding the development, regulation, sale, and utilization of pharmaceutical and medical interventions require an evaluation of the balance between benefits and risks. Such evaluations are subject to two fundamental challenges-measuring the clinical effectiveness and harms associated with the treatment, and determining the relative importance of these different types of outcomes. In some ways, determining the willingness to accept treatment-related risks in exchange for treatment benefits is the greater challenge because it involves the individual subjective judgments of many decision makers, and these decision makers may draw different conclusions about the optimal balance between benefits and risks. In response to increasing demand for benefit-risk evaluations, researchers have applied a variety of existing welfare-theoretic preference methods for quantifying the tradeoffs decision makers are willing to accept among expected clinical benefits and risks. The methods used to elicit benefit-risk preferences have evolved from different theoretical backgrounds. To provide some structure to the literature that accommodates the range of approaches, we begin by describing a welfare-theoretic conceptual framework underlying the measurement of benefit-risk preferences in pharmaceutical and medical treatment decisions. We then review the major benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods in the empirical literature and provide a brief overview of the studies using each of these methods. The benefit-risk preference methods described in this overview fall into two broad categories: direct-elicitation methods and conjoint analysis. Rating scales (6 studies), threshold techniques (9 studies), and standard gamble (2 studies) are examples of direct elicitation methods. Conjoint analysis studies are categorized by the question format used in the study, including ranking (1 study), graded pairs (1 study), and discrete choice (21 studies). The number of studies reviewed here demonstrates that this body of research already is substantial, and it appears that the number of benefit-risk preference studies in the literature will continue to increase. In addition, benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods have been applied to a variety of healthcare decisions and medical interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, surgical and medical procedures, and diagnostics, as well as resource-allocation decisions such as facility placement. While preference-elicitation approaches may differ across studies, all of the studies described in this review can be used to provide quantitative measures of the tradeoffs patients and other decision makers are willing to make between benefits and risks of medical interventions. Eliciting and quantifying the preferences of decision makers allows for a formal, evidence-based consideration of decision-makers' values that currently is lacking in regulatory decision making. Future research in this area should focus on two primary issues-developing best-practice standards for preference-elicitation studies and developing methods for combining stated preferences and clinical data in a manner that is both understandable and useful to regulatory agencies.