Patient Preferences for Benefits, Risks, and Administration Route of Hypomethylating Agents in Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Therapy with infused or injected hypomethylating agents (HMAs) may lead to higher treatment administration burden (ie, local reaction, visit frequency and duration) vs. oral HMAs.   OBJECTIVES: To reveal preferences of US and Canadian patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) for HMAs' benefits, risks, and administration burden through an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Choice of DCE attributes and survey development were informed by literature review and interviews with clinicians, MDS patients, and caregivers serving as patient proxies, and patient advocacy groups (PAGs) representatives, including from AAMAC, AAMDS, and MDSF. DCE choice tasks were analyzed using random parameter logit models. Survey patients were recruited by the PAGs via their networks. To understand key preference drivers and how much patients were willing to trade between attributes, we calculated each attribute's relative attribute importance (RAI) and marginal rates of substitution. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-four respondents (including 158 patients; mean age, 67.2 years; male, 50.5%; White, 50.5%; US residents, 88%) completed the survey. MDS risk was low (34.8%), high (30.9%), or unknown (34.2%). RAI (in decreasing order) was as follows: risk of AML (40%), fatigue level (33%), number of visits (12%), mode of administration (6%), visit duration (5%), and administration frequency (4%). Assuming the same risk of AML transformation or level of fatigue, most respondents (76.6%) were predicted to switch to an oral pill if it were available to them. CONCLUSION: Given equivalent effectiveness across HMAs, patients' preferences for HMA administration method should be considered in treatment decision-making to minimize burden and facilitate adherence.

Injectable Hypomethylating Agents for Management of Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Patients' Perspectives on Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, patients with MDSs could receive HMAs via intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) administration. An oral HMA was recently approved as an alternative to IV/SC administration. This study assessed the impact of IV/SC HMA on MDS patients, and their experience of, challenges with, and views about oral MDS treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among adult MDS patients (or caregivers as proxies) invited by 2 U.S. MDS patient advocacy groups. Patients were required to have received IV/SC HMA (ie, azacitidine or decitabine) within 6 months of the survey. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 141 participants (120 patients, 21 caregiver proxies). Median patient age was 63.0 years, 53.9% were women, and 19.8%, 62.4%, and 17.7% had lower-, higher-, or unknown risk scores, respectively. HMA treatments received included SC azacitidine (37%), IV azacitidine (36%), and IV decitabine (27%). Among 89 IV HMA recipients, 74.2% and 69.7% reported treatment-related interference with their social and daily activities, respectively, and 66.3% reported pain related to treatment administration. Following an injection, SC HMA recipients reported pain (94.2%) and interference with daily (86.5%) and social (80.8%) activities. Among the 49.6% of patients who were working, 61.4% felt less productive due to treatment. Most (69.5%) MDS patients indicated they would prefer oral MDS treatment to IV/SC therapies. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving IV/SC HMAs experienced pain/discomfort and interference with social and daily activities. The introduction of an oral HMA may alleviate some treatment challenges for MDS patients.