Health Preference Research in Europe: A Review of Its Use in Marketing Authorization, Reimbursement, and Pricing Decisions-Report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data. METHODS: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions. RESULTS: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences. CONCLUSION: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Perceptions About Glucagon Delivery Devices for Severe Hypoglycemia: Qualitative Research With Patients, Caregivers, and Acquaintances.

PURPOSE: People with diabetes taking insulin are at risk of severe hypoglycemia, an unpredictable, life-threatening event that requires assistance from others. Outside the clinical setting, glucagon is indicated for the treatment of hypoglycemia. However, there is significant unmet medical need to improve successful administration of glucagon by caregivers and acquaintances. This study assesses perceptions about glucagon delivery and potential effects of 2 glucagon delivery devices for severe hypoglycemia. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with people with diabetes (patients), caregivers, and acquaintances from a general population panel composed of individuals across the United States who have agreed to be recruited for research studies. Participants were recruited via email with a link to an online screener to determine eligibility. Experienced qualitative researchers conducted telephone interviews after a semistructured discussion guide, developed by the authors, that focused on aspirational device features and perceptions about the 2 devices: nasal glucagon and autoinjector glucagon; visuals of the instructions for use were displayed. Verbatim transcripts were developed, and a qualitative analysis software program, MaxQDA, was used to code responses and themes that emerged from the data. FINDINGS: A total of 45 (15 patients, 15 caregivers, and 15 acquaintances) interviews were conducted (mean ages, 55, 40, and 51, respectively). The most frequently spontaneously identified aspirational features for a new glucagon device were ease of use (29 [64%]), including being uncomplicated, premixed/ready to use, and ability to use quickly; small/easy to carry (9 [20%]); needle-free/no long needles (8 [18%]); and easy instructions (4 [9%]). In general, participants indicated that having a glucagon delivery device on hand would make them feel prepared, protected, and confident that others could assist in the event of severe hypoglycemia. More participants across all subgroups preferred nasal glucagon versus autoinjector glucagon (33 [73%] vs 12 [27%]). Favorable comments about nasal glucagon included that it appeared to be easy to carry, easy to use, and lacked a needle, that one does not need to remove clothing to use it, and that others likely would be more comfortable using it. Favorable comments about autoinjector glucagon included that it was familiar as a rescue device and that patients felt confident that the full dose would be delivered with it. There may be more hesitation using autoinjector glucagon versus nasal glucagon because of anxiety about needles and locating an injection site. Participants indicated that they would feel more comfortable socially using nasal glucagon because it was viewed as more discreet and less embarrassing than using autoinjector glucagon; it was also considered less traumatic for use in children. IMPLICATIONS: This research suggests that patients with diabetes, caregivers, and acquaintances prefer a device that is simple, compact, and ready to use. Nasal glucagon was generally preferred over autoinjector glucagon primarily because it lacks a needle and it appears to be less complicated.