ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The treatments for high-grade non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) vary between bladder preserving intravesical approaches and radical cystectomy. The impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life may vary widely. The purpose of this study was to elicit the general public's perspective on quality of life, measured as utility scores associated with treatment for Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG)-unresponsive NMIBC and disease progression, for supporting economic evaluation of newly developed treatments for NMIBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Part I involved the development and testing of health states describing NMIBC, which was informed by a rapid review, expert input and a patient advisor. Part II involved elicitation of societal utility values for the different health states. Time trade-off (TTO) interviews were conducted with members of the UK general public. Five health states described different NMIBC scenarios including disease recurrence and progression. Participants ranked each health state, followed by the TTO valuation exercise. Descriptors included NMIBC symptom severity, impact and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 202 members of the general public participated. The mean age was 46 (standard deviation [SD] 14.6) years. Sample mean (SD) EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS) and index scores were 83.2 (12.3) and 0.89 (0.18), respectively. Mean utilities were 0.781 for No High-Grade Recurrence, 0.586 for High-Grade Recurrence, 0.572 for > 1-Year Post-cystectomy and 0.283 for metastatic disease. The First Year Post-cystectomy path health state had a mean utility of 0.288. Pairwise comparisons found statistically significant differences between utilities (p < 0.001), except between High-Grade Recurrence and > 1-Year Post-cystectomy (p = 0.524). There were significant differences in utility scores by age and employment status. CONCLUSION: This study provides utility scores for health states describing living with NMIBC, which is associated with a significant health-related quality-of-life burden. These values address an existing gap in available data and have the potential to be used in models evaluating the cost-effectiveness of both current and newly developed treatments for bladder cancer.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although several self-injectable preventive treatments for migraine have become available, they are not yet widely used. Thus, understanding patients' perceptions towards them is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform the design of a preference-elicitation instrument, which is being developed to quantify preventive treatment preferences of people with migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving nine in-person focus groups (three per country) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants were adults (n = 47) with episodic or chronic migraine who were currently using or had used a prescription preventive treatment for migraine within the previous 5 years. During the focus groups, participants described their experiences of migraine and preventive treatments; handled and simulated self-injection using five different unbranded, fired demonstration auto-injectors and prefilled syringes; and ranked different aspects of preventive treatments by importance. Focus groups were analyzed with a focus on themes that would be feasible or meaningful to include in a subsequent preference-elicitation instrument. RESULTS: Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks was consistently ranked as the most important aspect of preventive treatment. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with available daily oral preventive treatments for migraine they had previously used because they were ineffective or caused intolerable adverse events. Many participants were willing to self-inject a treatment that was effective and tolerable. When presented with devices for self-injecting a preventive treatment for migraine, participants generally preferred autoinjectors over prefilled syringes. Participants especially valued safety features such as the unlocking step and automated needle insertion, and audible and visual dose confirmation increased confidence in autoinjector use. Autoinjector needle protection mechanisms were also appreciated, especially by participants averse to needles, as the needles are not visible. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the fact that many people with migraine still lack access to a preventive treatment that is effective and tolerable. In addition to efficacy and safety considerations, treatment decisions may be guided by the mode of administration. In the case of self-injectable preventive treatments, key device characteristics affecting these decisions may be ease of use, comfort, and confidence in self-injection. Insights gained from this study were used to help develop a preliminary set of attributes and levels for a preference-elicitation instrument.
