Multidimensional Thresholding for Individual-Level Preference Elicitation.

OBJECTIVES: Multiple methods are available for collecting health preference information. However, information on the design and analysis of novel methods is limited. This article aims to provide the first introduction into the design and analysis of multidimensional thresholding (MDT). METHODS: We introduce MDT as a 2-step approach: First, participants rank the largest possible improvements in all considered attributes by their importance. Second, participants complete a series of systematically combined trade-off questions. Hit-and-Run sampling is used for obtaining preference weights. We also use a computational experiment to compare different MDT designs. RESULTS: The outlined MDT can generate preference information suitable for specifying a multiattribute utility function at the individual level. The computational experiment demonstrates the method's ability to recover preference weights at a high level of precision. While all designs in the computation experiment perform comparably well on average, the design outlined in the paper stands out with a high level of precision even if differences in relative attribute importance are large. CONCLUSION: MDT is suitable for preference elicitation, in particular if sample sizes are small. Future research should help improve the methods (e.g., remove the need for an initial ranking) to increase the potential reach of MDT.

Treatment preferences of adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: A discrete choice experiment.

PRODUCTS with janus kinase (JAK) inhibition have been shown to promote hair regrowth in patients with alopecia areata (AA). To guide drug-approval and treatment decisions, it is important to understand patients' willingness to accept the potential risks of JAK inhibition in exchange for potential benefits. We quantified the treatment preferences of adult (≥18 years) and adolescent patients (12-17 years) with AA in the US and Europe to determine the trade-offs they are willing to make between benefits and risks. Preferences for oral AA treatment attributes were elicited using a discrete choice experiment consisting of 12 tasks in which patients chose between two hypothetical treatment alternatives and no treatment. Benefits included the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth (Severity of Alopecia Tool score ≤ 20) and achieving moderate-to-normal eyebrow and eyelash hair. Treatment-related risks included 3-year probabilities of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots. Preference estimates were used to calculate the maximum level of each risk that patients were willing to accept for increases in treatment benefits. The most important attribute to both adults (n = 201) and adolescents (n = 120) was a 50% probability of achieving hair regrowth on most or all the scalp; however, adolescents placed greater relative importance on this attribute than did adults. Adults were averse to the risks of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots, whereas adolescents were averse to the risk of cancer. For a 20% increase in the probability of 80%-100% scalp hair regrowth, adults were willing to accept a mean (95% confidence interval) 3-year risk of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots of 7.4% (5.5-9.3), 2.5% (1.9-3.1), and 9.3% (6.4-12.2). Adolescents were willing to accept a 3-year risk of cancer of 3.3% (2.4-4.2). Patients with AA in the US and Europe are willing to accept substantial risks to obtain an effective treatment.

Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED. RESULTS: A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each). CONCLUSIONS: FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.

Two Methods, One Story? Comparing Results of a Choice Experiment and Multidimensional Thresholding From a Clinician Preference Study in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of methods are used to elicit health preference information. It is unclear whether different elicitation methods produce similar results and policy advice. Here, we compared the results from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and multidimensional thresholding (MDT) that were conducted in the same sample. METHODS: Clinicians (N = 350) completed a DCE and MDT to elicit their preferences for 4 attributes related to the medical management of subarachnoid hemorrhage after aneurysm repair. Preference weights were compared between the DCE and MDT using a complete combinatorial convolution test. Additionally, data from the DCE and MDT were used to compute preference-based net treatment values for 16 hypothetical treatment profiles versus 1000 simulated comparators. The implied treatment recommendations were compared between the DCE and MDT. RESULTS: Preference weight distributions and median weights did not differ significantly between the DCE and MDT for any attribute: likelihood of delayed cerebral ischemia (medians 0.48 vs 0.40; P = .41), risk of lung complications (medians 0.27 vs 0.30; P = .52), risk of hypotension (medians 0.10 vs 0.11; P = .55), and risk of anemia (medians 0.07 vs 0.07; P = .50). The DCE and MDT produced similar treatment net value distributions (P > .05) and implied the same treatment recommendations in 82.3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The DCE and MDT elicited similar preference distributions and produced the same treatment recommendations for most tested cases. However, the share of people supporting the average treatment recommendation differed. More research is needed to determine how these findings would compare with those in other populations (in particular, patients) and applications.

Regulatory benefit-risk assessment of oncology drugs: A systematic review of FDA and EMA approvals.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA have policy goals of strengthening benefit-risk (B-R) capabilities; but how this has been translating into regulatory practice is unclear. A systematic review of oncology drug approvals between 2015 and 2020 was conducted with approvals identified through review of FDA and EMA annual reports, with extraction of information on submission, clinical program and B-R assessment from publicly available review documents. Data were extracted from 236 reviews (EMA: 66 new submissions, 100 label extensions; FDA: 70 new submissions). The standard of evidence for B-R assessments seems to have diversified over time; yet, despite policy targets to extend their use, these assessments rarely include patient experience or real-world data.

A Discrete Choice Experiment to Assess Patient Preferences for Asthma Rescue Therapy and Disease Management.

BACKGROUND: With the expanding treatment landscape for asthma, the process of identifying best-fit, individualized management options is becoming increasingly complicated. Understanding patients' preferences can inform shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine preferences of adults with asthma for therapeutic and management attributes and determine how these preferences vary among patients. METHODS: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment survey in US adults with asthma. Patient preferences were analyzed using logit models. Factors affecting patients' preferences were identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,184 patients completed the survey (60% female; mean [SD] age, 49.2 [15.0] years). Patients most valued fewer asthma attacks requiring urgent health care professional visits, fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids, and a reduced risk for oral thrush. Higher value was placed on reducing the risk of short-term (oral thrush) versus long-term side effects (diabetes). Patients were willing to increase rescue medication use in exchange for decreasing exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and attacks requiring urgent health care professional visits. Patients preferred a single inhaler for rescue and maintenance and least valued asthma action plans. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors affected patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Patients sought convenient management options that focused mainly on decreasing the short-term morbidity associated with asthma exacerbations and therapies. Preferences varied by demographics, clinical factors, and socioeconomics. It is important for shared decision-making discussions to include conversations about morbidity and how available therapeutic options align with individual patient preferences.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Illustrating Emerging Good Practices for Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Hypothetical Case Study of Systemic Biologic Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a structured process to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of treatment options to support decision making. The ISPOR qBRA Task Force was recently established to provide recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of qBRA. This report presents a hypothetical case study illustrating how to apply the Task Force's recommendations toward a qBRA to inform the benefit-risk assessment of brodalumab at the time of initial marketing approval. The qBRA evaluated 2 dosing regimens of brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg twice weekly) compared with weight-based dosing of ustekinumab and placebo. METHODS: We followed the 5 steps recommended by the Task Force. Attributes included treatment response (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index), suicidal ideation and behavior, and infections. Performance data were drawn from pivotal clinical trials of brodalumab. The qBRA used multicriteria decision analysis and preference weights from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, consideration of a subgroup (nail psoriasis), and the maintenance phase of treatment (52 weeks instead of 12). RESULTS: Results from this hypothetical qBRA suggest that brodalumab 210 mg had a more favorable benefit-risk profile compared with ustekinumab and placebo. Ranking of brodalumab compared with ustekinumab was dependent on brodalumab's dose. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, as well as choice of attributes and length of follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates how to implement the ISPOR Task Force's good practice recommendations on qBRA.

Discrete Choice Experiment to Understand Japanese Patients' and Physicians' Preferences for Preventive Treatments for Migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Self-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) auto-injectors and non-CGRP oral medications are currently available for migraine prevention in Japan. This study elicited the preferences for self-injectable CGRP mAbs and non-CGRP oral medications and determined differences in the relative importance of auto-injector attributes for patients and physicians in Japan. METHODS: Japanese adults with episodic (EM) or chronic (CM) migraine and physicians who treat migraine completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), asking participants to choose a hypothetical treatment they preferred between two self-injectable CGRP mAb auto-injectors and a non-CGRP oral medication. The treatments were described by seven treatment attributes, with attribute levels varying between questions. DCE data were analyzed using a random-constant logit model to estimate relative attribution importance (RAI) scores and predicted choice probabilities (PCP) of CGRP mAb profiles. RESULTS: A total of 601 patients (79.2% with EM, 60.1% female, mean age: 40.3 years) and 219 physicians (mean length of practice: 18.3 years) completed the DCE. About half (50.5%) of patients favored CGRP mAb auto-injectors, while others were skeptical of (20.2%) or averse (29.3%) to them. Patients most valued needle removal (RAI = 33.8%), shorter injection duration (RAI = 32.1%), and auto-injector base shape and need for skin pinching (RAI = 23.2%). Most physicians (87.8%) favored auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications. Physicians most valued less-frequent dosing RAI = 32.7%), shorter injection duration (30.4%), and longer storage outside the fridge (RAI = 20.3%). A profile comparable to galcanezumab showed a higher likelihood of being chosen by patients (PCP = 42.8%) than profiles comparable to erenumab (PCP = 28.4%) and fremanezumab (PCP = 28.8%). The PCPs of the three profiles were similar among physicians. CONCLUSION: Many patients and physicians preferred CGRP mAb auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications and preferred a treatment profile similar to galcanezumab. Our results may encourage physicians in Japan to consider patient preferences when recommending migraine preventive treatments.

Current Health State Affected Patient Preferences More Than Disease Status: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Multiple Myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how disease status and current health state influence treatment preferences of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: Participants with MM from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom completed a web-based survey that included a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and EQ-5D assessment. The DCE elicited preferences for 8 attributes: increased life expectancy, increased time to relapse, pain, fatigue, risk of infection, administration (route and duration), frequency of administration, and monitoring. Multinomial logit models were used to analyze DCE preference data and to calculate life expectancy trade-offs. RESULTS: Three hundred participants with MM (newly diagnosed, transplant eligible, n = 108; newly diagnosed, transplant ineligible, n = 105; relapsed-refractory, n = 87) completed the survey. The most valued attributes were pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy. Participants would want an additional 2.7 years of life expectancy (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-3.1 years) to tolerate extreme pain and an additional 2.0 years of life expectancy (95% CI 1.6-2.3 years) to tolerate constant fatigue. Participants in a better health state (third EQ-5D score quartile [0.897]) required less additional life expectancy than participants with a worse health state (first EQ-5D score quartile [0.662]) to tolerate extreme pain (2.3 years [95% CI 1.9-2.6 years] vs 3.0 years [95% CI 2.6-3.4 years]; P = .007). There was little difference in treatment preferences between newly diagnosed and relapsed-refractory patients for pain, fatigue, and increased life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: Current health state influenced treatment preferences of patients with MM more than disease status and should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Treatment preferences in relation to fatigue of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: A discrete choice experiment.

Background: Treatment decisions for multiple sclerosis (MS) are influenced by many factors such as disease symptoms, comorbidities, and tolerability. Objective: To determine how much relapsing MS patients were willing to accept the worsening of certain aspects of their MS in return for improvements in symptoms or treatment convenience. Methods: A web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in patients with relapsing MS. Multinomial logit models were used to estimate relative attribute importance (RAI) and to quantify attribute trade-offs. Results: The DCE was completed by 817 participants from the US, the UK, Poland, and Russia. The most valued attributes of MS therapy to participants were effects on physical fatigue (RAI = 22.3%), cognitive fatigue (RAI = 22.0%), relapses over 2 years (RAI = 20.7%), and MS progression (RAI = 18.4%). Participants would accept six additional relapses in 2 years and a decrease of 7 years in time to disease progression to improve either cognitive or physical fatigue from "quite a bit of difficulty" to "no difficulty." Conclusion: Patients strongly valued improving cognitive and physical fatigue and were willing to accept additional relapses or a shorter time to disease progression to have less fatigue. The impact of fatigue on MS patients' quality of life should be considered in treatment decisions.

The relevance of fatigue to relapse rate in multiple sclerosis: Applying patient preference data to the OPTIMUM trial.

BACKGROUND: In the OPTIMUM trial in patients with relapsing MS, treatment differences in annualized relapse rate (ARR, 0.088) and change in fatigue at week 108 (3.57 points, measured using the Fatigue Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, symptom domain (FSIQ-RMS-S)) favored ponesimod over teriflunomide. However, the importance of the fatigue outcome to patients was unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of the OPTIMUM FSIQ-RMS-S results using data from an MS discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: The DCE included components to correlate levels of physical and cognitive fatigue with FSIQ-RMS-S scores. Changes in relapses/year and time to MS progression equivalent to the treatment difference in fatigue in OPTIMUM were determined for similar fatigue levels as mean baseline fatigue in OPTIMUM. RESULTS: DCE participants would accept 0.06 more relapses/year or a 0.15-0.17 year decrease in time to MS progression for a 3.57-point difference in physical fatigue on the FSIQ-RMS-S. To improve cognitive fatigue by 3.57-points on the FSIQ-RMS-S, DCE participants would accept 0.09-0.10 more relapses/year or a 0.24-0.28 year decrease in time to MS progression. CONCLUSION: MS patients would accept 0.06 more relapses/year to change their fatigue by a similar magnitude as the between-treatment difference observed in the OPTIMUM trial.

Preferences for Anaemia Treatment Attributes among Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Information about patient preferences for the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is scarce. Hence, our aim was to examine how patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD valued attributes of alternative hypothetical anaemia treatments. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in adult patients who reported a clinical diagnosis of CKD-related anaemia. Treatment attributes included mode and frequency of administration, need for iron supplementation, risk of gastrointestinal side effects, risk of major cardiovascular events and impact on energy levels (as defined by the vitality section of the SF-6D health index). Logit models were used to analyse patients' preferences. RESULTS: The DCE was completed by 200 patients in four countries. Patients preferred an oral mode of administration. Patients were willing to tolerate a 5.1% (95% CI 2.0-8.3%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event and an 11.7% (95% CI 5.0-18.5%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects to switch from an at-home subcutaneous injection administered once every 2 weeks to an at-home oral pill administered three times a week. Patients were willing to tolerate a 20.3% (95% CI 15.0-25.6%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and an 8.9% (95% CI 6.1-11.7%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event to transition from 'Sometimes having a lot of energy' to 'Always having a lot of energy'. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD-related anaemia demonstrated clear treatment preferences and were willing to accept increased gastrointestinal or cardiovascular risks in exchange for more energy or an oral treatment.

Suboptimal Control of Asthma Among Diverse Patients: A US Mixed Methods Focus Group Study.

Purpose: The US National Asthma Education and Prevention Program updates and Global Initiative for Asthma report encourage considering the patient perspective to improve asthma control. The objective of the present study was to collect data about the perceptions, experiences, and concerns of adult patients and caregivers of children with asthma regarding rescue, maintenance, and oral corticosteroid treatments. Patients and Methods: In-person focus groups were conducted in three cities across the US. Participants also completed patient-reported outcome measures assessing asthma control and experiences. Results: Focus groups were conducted in demographically and clinically diverse adults with asthma (five groups, n=34), caregivers of children with asthma (five groups, n=35), and adults with a dual diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (one group, n=5). Only 28% of patients were well-controlled by Asthma Control Test/Asthma Control Test-Caregiver Report and 18% by Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire. Forty-four percent of participants reported not following their prescribed medical plan. Four key themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) asthma symptom control and monitoring are often inadequate; (2) treatments are often used incorrectly; (3) communication between health care professionals and patients or caregivers is often ineffective; and (4) concerns related to treatment and desires to improve treatment. Conclusion: Control of asthma symptoms is suboptimal in the vast majority of patients and both patients and caregivers do not feel sufficiently informed about asthma. Health care providers should be encouraged to engage patients and caregivers in shared decision making for managing asthma and selecting treatments that integrate patient values, preferences, and lifestyles.

A simulated maximum likelihood procedure for analyzing imprecise trade-off thresholds between the benefits and harms of medicines.

Stated preference studies in which information on the willingness to trade-off between the benefits and harms of medicines is elicited from patients or other stakeholders are becoming increasingly mainstream. Such trade-offs can mathematically be represented by a weighted additive function, with the weights, whose ratios determine how much an individual is willing to trade-off between the treatment attributes, being the response vector for the statistical analysis. One way of eliciting trade-off information is through multi-dimensional thresholding (MDT), which is a bisection-based approach that results in increasingly tight bounds on the values of the weights ratios. While MDT is cognitively less demanding than other, more direct elicitation methods, its use complicates the statistical analysis as it results in weights data that are region censored. In this article, we present a simulated maximum likelihood (SML) procedure for fitting a Dirichlet population model directly to the region-censored weights data and perform a series of computational experiments to compare the proposed SML procedure to a naive approach in which a Dirichlet distribution is fitted to the centroids of the weights boundaries obtained with MDT. The results indicate that the SML procedure consistently outperformed the centroid-based approach, with the centroid-based approach requiring three bisection steps per trade-off to achieve a similar precision as the SML procedure with one bisection step per trade-off. Using the newly proposed SML procedure, MDT can be applied with smaller sample sizes or with fewer questions compared to the more naïve centroid-based approach that was applied in previous applications of MDT.

Patient preferences for atopic dermatitis medications in the UK, France and Spain: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to quantify patient preferences for efficacy, safety and convenience features of atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments. DESIGN AND SETTING: Online discrete choice experiment survey. PARTICIPANTS: Adults in the UK, France and Spain who had used AD treatments during the past 2 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferences for attributes were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Willingness to make trade-offs was expressed as the maximum acceptable decrease (MAD) in the probability of achieving clear/almost clear skin at week 16. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 404 patients (44.1±12.0 years; 65% women; 64% moderate/severe eczema). Most patients (68%) had no prior experience of using self-injectable treatments for AD or any other illness. Participants most valued increasing the chance of achieving a meaningful reduction in itch at week 16 from 20% to 50%, followed by reducing the risks of serious infections from 6% to 0% and of eye inflammation from 20% to 0%. Participants were willing to accept a decrease in the possibility of achieving clear/almost clear skin to obtain a treatment that can be paused (MAD=24.1%), requires occasional check-ups (MAD=16.1%) or no check-ups (MAD=20.9%) over frequent check-ups, is administered as a one time per day or two times per day oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks (MAD=16.6%), has a 2-day over 2-week onset of action (MAD=11.3%), and can be used for flare management (MAD=5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with AD most valued treatment benefits and risks, they were willing to tolerate reduced efficacy to obtain a rapid onset, oral administration, less frequent monitoring and a treatment that can be paused. Understanding patients' preferences for AD therapies, including new targeted therapies, can aid shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and support health technology assessments.

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta-analysis of opioid dependence and a long-term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Lower-dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit-risk score (0.901), followed by higher-dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower-dose NGFi was the highest-ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit-risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.23 for NSAIDs). CONCLUSION: The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit-risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders' treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders' preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results. METHODS: A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants' preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%). CONCLUSIONS: DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants' risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.

Patient Perspectives and Experiences of Preventive Treatments and Self-Injectable Devices for Migraine: A Focus Group Study.

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.