Patients' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Several sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor (S1PR) modulators are available in the US for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). Given that these S1PR modulators have similar efficacy and safety, patients may consider the clinical management characteristics of the S1PR modulators when deciding among treatments. However, none of the S1PR modulators is clearly superior in every aspect of clinical management, and for some treatments, clinical management varies based on a patient's comorbid health conditions (e.g., heart conditions [HC]). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine which S1PR modulator patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) would prefer based on clinical management considerations, and to estimate how different clinical management considerations might drive these preferences. Preferences were explored separately for patients with and without comorbid HC. METHODS: A multicriteria decision analysis was conducted on S1PR modulators approved to treat RMS: fingolimod, ozanimod, siponimod, and ponesimod. Clinical management preferences of patients with RRMS were elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which participants repeatedly chose between hypothetical S1PR modulator profiles based on their clinical management attributes. Attributes included first-dose observations, genotyping, liver function tests, eye examinations, drug-drug interactions, interactions with antidepressants, interactions with foods high in tyramine, and immune system recovery time. Preferences were estimated separately for patients with HC and without HC (noHC). Marginal utilities were calculated from the DCE data for each attribute and level using a mixed logit model. In the multicriteria decision analysis, partial value scores were created by applying the marginal utilities for each attribute and level to the real-world profiles of S1PR modulators. Partial value scores were summed to determine an overall clinical management value score for each S1PR modulator. RESULTS: Four hundred patients with RRMS completed the DCE. Ponesimod had the highest overall value score for patients both without (n = 341) and with (n = 59) HC (noHC: 5.1; HC: 4.0), followed by siponimod (noHC: 4.9; HC: 3.3), fingolimod (noHC: 3.4; HC: 2.8), and ozanimod (noHC: 0.9; HC: 0.8). Overall, immune system recovery time contributed the highest partial value scores (noHC: up to 1.9 points; HC: up to 1.2 points), followed by the number of drug-drug interactions (noHC: up to 1.2 points; HC: up to 1.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: When considering the clinical management of S1PR modulators, the average patient with RRMS is expected to choose a treatment with shorter immune system recovery time and fewer interactions with other drugs. Patients both with and without heart conditions are likely to prefer the clinical management profile of ponesimod over those of siponimod, fingolimod, and ozanimod. This information can help inform recommendations for treating RRMS and facilitate shared decision making between patients and their doctors.

From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is fundamental for designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) but is often underreported in the preference literature. We developed a DCE to elicit preferences for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among adolescents and young people (AYP) and parents and legal guardians (PLG) in the United States. This article reports the targeted literature review and qualitative interviews that informed the DCE design and demonstrates how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies. METHODS: This study included two parts: a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on IMD and immunization. The results of the targeted literature review informed a qualitative interview guide. Sixty-minute, online, semi-structured interviews with AYP and PLG were used to identify themes related to willingness to be vaccinated against IMD. Participants were recruited through a third-party recruiter's database and commercial online panels. Interviews included vignettes about IMD and vaccinations and three thresholding exercises examining the effect of incidence rate, disability rate, and fatality rate on vaccination preferences. Participant responses related to the themes were counted. RESULTS: The targeted literature review identified 31 concepts that were synthesized into six topics for the qualitative interviews. Twenty AYP aged 16-23 years and 20 PLG of adolescents aged 11-17 years were interviewed. Four themes related to willingness to be vaccinated emerged: attitudes towards vaccination, knowledge and information, perception of IMD, and vaccine attributes. Most participants were concerned about IMD (AYP 60%; PLG 85%) and had positive views of vaccination (AYP 80%; PLG 60%). Ninety percent of AYP and 75% of PLG always chose vaccination over no vaccination, independent of IMD incidence rate, disability rate, or fatality rate. CONCLUSION: Willingness to be vaccinated against IMD was affected by vaccine attributes but largely insensitive to IMD incidence and severity. This article provides an example of how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies, with 21 out of 22 items in the guidelines being considered.

What benefit-risk trade-offs are acceptable to rheumatoid arthritis patients during treatment selection? Evidence from a multicountry choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding preferences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can facilitate tailored patient-centric care. This study elicited trade-offs that patients with RA were willing to make during treatment selection. METHODS: Patients with RA completed an online discrete choice experiment, consisting of a series of choices between hypothetical treatments. Treatment attributes were selected based on literature review and qualitative patient interviews. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with RA, receiving systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, and residents of Europe or USA. Male patients were oversampled for subgroup analyses. Data were analysed using a correlated mixed logit model. RESULTS: Of 2090 participants, 42% were female; mean age was 45.2 years (range 18-83). Estimated effects were significant for all attributes (p<0.001) but varied between patients. Average relative attribute importance scores revealed different priorities (p<0.001) between males and females. While reducing pain and negative effect on semen parameters was most important to males, females were most concerned by risk of blood clots and serious infections. No single attribute explained treatment preferences by more than 30%. Preferences were also affected by patients' age: patients aged 18-44 years placed less importance on frequency and mode of treatment administration (p<0.05) than older age groups. Patients were willing to accept higher risk of serious infections and blood clots in exchange for improvements in pain, daily activities or administration convenience. However, acceptable trade-offs varied between patients (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment preferences of patients with RA were individual-specific, but driven by benefits and risks, with no single attribute dominating the decision-making.

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.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists for how patient preference elicitation methods compare directly. This study compares a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and swing-weighting (SW) by eliciting preferences for glucose-monitoring devices in a population of diabetes patients. METHODS: A sample of Dutch adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes (n = 459) completed an online survey assessing their preferences for glucose-monitoring devices, consisting of both a DCE and a SW exercise. Half the sample completed the DCE first; the other half completed the SW first. For the DCE, the relative importance of the attributes of the devices was determined using a mixed-logit model. For the SW, the relative importance of the attributes was based on ranks and points allocated to the 'swing' from the worst to the best level of the attribute. The preference outcomes and self-reported response burden were directly compared between the two methods. RESULTS: Participants reported they perceived the DCE to be easier to understand and answer compared to the SW. Both methods revealed that cost and precision of the device were the most important attributes. However, the DCE had a 14.9-fold difference between the most and least important attribute, while the SW had a 1.4-fold difference. The weights derived from the SW were almost evenly distributed between all attributes. CONCLUSIONS: The DCE was better received by participants, and generated larger weight differences between each attribute level, making it the more informative method in our case study. This method comparison provides further evidence of the degree of method suitability and trustworthiness.

Diabetes patient preferences for glucose-monitoring technologies: results from a discrete choice experiment in Poland and the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: New glucose-monitoring technologies have different cost-benefit profiles compared with traditional finger-prick tests, resulting in a preference-sensitive situation for patients. This study aimed to assess the relative value adults with diabetes assign to device attributes in two countries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes from the Netherlands (n=226) and Poland (n=261) completed an online discrete choice experiment. Respondents choose between hypothetical glucose monitors described using seven attributes: precision, effort to check, number of finger pricks required, risk of skin irritation, information provided, alarm function and out-of-pocket costs. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute relative importance and to calculate expected uptake rates and willingness to pay (WTP). RESULTS: The most important attribute for both countries was monthly out-of-pocket costs. Polish respondents were more likely than Dutch respondents to choose a glucose-monitoring device over a standard finger prick and had higher WTP for a device. Dutch respondents had higher WTP for device improvements in an effort to check and reduce the number of finger pricks a device requires. CONCLUSION: Costs are the primary concern of patients in both countries when choosing a glucose monitor and would likely hamper real-world uptake. The costs-benefit profiles of such devices should be critically reviewed.

The Impact of Video-Based Educational Materials with Voiceovers on Preferences for Glucose Monitoring Technology in Patients with Diabetes: A Randomised Study.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring patients have enough information about healthcare choices prior to completing a preference study is necessary to support the validity of the findings. Patients are commonly informed using text-based information with supporting graphics. Video-based information may be more engaging for the general patient population. This study aimed to assess (1) the impact that educating patients using video-based educational materials with a voiceover has on patient preferences compared to traditional text, and (2) whether this impact is consistent between two countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A video-based educational tool was developed to inform patients prior to completing a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for glucose monitors. Patients with diabetes from the Netherlands and Poland were recruited through an online research panel. Respondents were randomised to receive information in either a text or a video with animations and a voiceover. Data were analysed using a mixed-logit model. RESULTS: N = 981 completed surveys were analysed from the Netherlands (n = 459) and Poland (n = 522). Differences were found between the countries, but no interpretable pattern of differences was found between the two types of educational materials. Patients spent less time in the educational material than would be necessary to fully review all of the content. CONCLUSIONS: Simply providing educational material in a video with animations and voiceovers does not necessarily lead to better engagement from respondents or different preference outcomes in a sample of diabetes patients when compared to text. Increasing engagement with educational materials should be a topic of future research for those conducting patient preference research as no amount of educational material will be helpful if respondents do not access it.

Taking into Account Patient Preferences: A Consensus Study on the Assessment of Psychological Dimensions Within Patient Preference Studies.

Patient preferences are gaining recognition among key stakeholders involved in benefit-risk decision-making along the medical product lifecycle. However, one of the main challenges of integrating patient preferences in benefit-risk decision-making is understanding differences in patient preference, which may be attributable to clinical characteristics (eg age, medical history) or psychosocial factors. Measuring the latter may provide valuable information to decision-makers but there is limited guidance regarding which psychological dimensions may influence patient preferences and which psychological instruments should be considered for inclusion in patient preference studies. This paper aims to provide such guidance by advancing evidence and consensus-based recommendations and considerations. Findings of a recent systematic review on psychological constructs having an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions were expanded with input from an expert group (n = 11). These data were then used as the basis for final recommendations developed through two rounds of formal evaluation via an online Delphi consensus process involving international experts in the field of psychology, medical decision-making, and risk communication (n = 27). Three classes of recommendations emerged. Eleven psychological constructs reached consensus to be recommended for inclusion with the strongest consensus existing for health literacy, numeracy, illness perception and treatment-related beliefs. We also proposed a set of descriptive and checklist criteria to appraise available psychological measures to assist researchers and other stakeholders in including psychological assessment when planning patient preference studies. These recommendations can guide researchers and other stakeholders when designing and interpreting patient preference studies with a potential high impact in clinical practice and medical product benefit-risk decision-making processes.

Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: A Qualitative Study in Neuromuscular Disorders to Inform a Quantitative Preference Study.

INTRODUCTION: It has become increasingly important to include patient preference information in decision-making processes for drug development. As neuromuscular disorders represent multisystem, debilitating, and progressive rare diseases with few treatment options, this study aimed to explore unmet health care needs and patient treatment preferences for two neuromuscular disorders, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM) to inform early stages of drug development. METHODS: Fifteen semi-structured interviews and five focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with DM1 and MM adult patients and caregivers. Topics discussed included (1) reasons for study participation; (2) disease signs/symptoms and their impact on daily lives; (3) top desired benefits; and (4) acceptability of risks and tolerance levels for a hypothetical new treatment. Data were analyzed following a thematic 'code' approach. RESULTS: A total of 52 participants representing a wide range of disease severities participated. 'Muscle strength' and 'energy and endurance' were the disease-related unmet needs most often mentioned. Additionally, improved 'balance', 'cognition' and 'gut function' were the top desired treatment benefits, while 'damage to the liver, kidneys or eyes' was the most concerning risk. Factors influencing their tolerance to risks related to previously having experienced the risk and differentiation between permanent and temporary risks. A few differences were elicited between patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study provided an open forum to elicit treatment-desired benefits and acceptable risks to be established by patients themselves. These findings can inform decisions for developing new treatments and the design of clinical trials for DM1 and MM.

An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process?

BACKGROUND: Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients' healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to: 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information. METHODS: A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted. RESULTS: Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future. CONCLUSION: Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders.

Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods, are most suitable for decision-making at different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to use an empirical approach to assess which attributes of PP assessment methods are most important, and to identify which methods are most suitable, for decision-makers' needs during different stages in the MPLC. METHODS: A four-step cumulative approach was taken: 1) Identify important criteria to appraise methods through a Q-methodology exercise, 2) Determine numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance of each criterion through an analytical hierarchy process, 3) Assess the performance of 33 PP methods by applying these weights, consulting international health preference research experts and review of literature, and 4) Compare and rank the methods within taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques to identify the most promising methods. RESULTS: The Q-methodology exercise was completed by 54 stakeholders with PP study experience, and the analytical hierarchy process was completed by 85 stakeholders with PP study experience. Additionally, 17 health preference research experts were consulted to assess the performance of the PP methods. Thirteen promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified as likely to meet decision-makers' needs. Additionally, eight other methods that decision-makers might consider were identified, although they appeared appropriate only for some stages of the MPLC. CONCLUSIONS: This transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods supports decision-makers and researchers in selecting PP methods most appropriate for a given application.

A study protocol for quantifying patient preferences in neuromuscular disorders: a case study of the IMI PREFER Project.

Objectives: Patient preference studies are increasingly used to inform decision-making during the medical product lifecycle but are rarely used to inform early stages of drug development.  The primary aim of this study is to quantify treatment preferences of patients with neuromuscular disorders, which represent serious and debilitating conditions with limited or no treatment options available. Methods: This quantitative patient preferences study was designed as an online survey, with a cross-over design.  This study will target two different diseases from the neuromuscular disorders disease group, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM). Despite having different physio-pathological pathways both DM1 and MM manifest in a clinically similar manner and may benefit from similar treatment options.  The sample will be stratified into three subgroups: two patient groups differentiated by age of symptom onset and one caregivers group.   Each subgroup will be randomly assigned to complete two of three different preference elicitation methods at two different time points: Q-methodology survey, discrete choice experiment, and best-worst scaling type 2, allowing cross-comparisons of the results across each study time within participants and within elicitation methods. Additional variables such as sociodemographic, clinical and health literacy will be collected to enable analysis of potential heterogeneity. Ethics and Dissemination: This study protocol has undergone ethical review and approval by the Newcastle University R&D Ethics Committee (Ref: 15169/2018). All participants will be invited to give electronic informed consent to take part in the study prior accessing the online survey. All electronic data will be anonymised prior analysis. This study is part of the Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (IMI-PREFER) project, a public-private collaborative research project aiming to develop expert and evidence-based recommendations on how and when patient preferences can be assessed and used to inform medical product decision making.

Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study.

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making. Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo. Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA. Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate. OBJECTIVE: This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA. METHODS: A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned. RESULTS: Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Factors and Situations Affecting the Value of Patient Preference Studies: Semi-Structured Interviews in Europe and the US.

Objectives: Patient preference information (PPI) is gaining recognition among the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies/payers for use in assessments and decision-making along the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to identify factors and situations that influence the value of patient preference studies (PPS) in decision-making along the MPLC according to different stakeholders. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with six different stakeholder groups (physicians, academics, industry representatives, regulators, HTA/payer representatives, and a combined group of patients, caregivers, and patient representatives) from seven European countries (the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Romania, Germany, France, and the Netherlands) and the United States. Framework analysis was performed using NVivo 11 software. Results: Fifteen factors affecting the value of PPS in the MPLC were identified. These are related to: study organization (expertise, financial resources, study duration, ethics and good practices, patient centeredness), study design (examining patient and/or other preferences, ensuring representativeness, matching method to research question, matching method to MPLC stage, validity and reliability, cognitive burden, patient education, attribute development), and study conduct (patients' ability/willingness to participate and preference heterogeneity). Three types of situations affecting the use of PPS results were identified (stakeholder acceptance, market situations, and clinical situations). Conclusion: The factors and situation types affecting the value of PPS, as identified in this study, need to be considered when designing and conducting PPS in order to promote the integration of PPI into decision-making along the MPLC.

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA.

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize stakeholders' attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with academics (n = 24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n = 24), industry representatives (n = 24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n = 24), physicians (n = 24), and regulators (n = 23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group. RESULTS: Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders' understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients' understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP.

Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review.

Preference studies are becoming increasingly important within the medical product decision-making context. Currently, there is limited understanding of the range of methods to gain insights into patient preferences. We developed a compendium and taxonomy of preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods by conducting a systematic literature review to identify these methods. This review was followed by analyzing prior preference method reviews, to cross-validate our results, and consulting intercontinental experts, to confirm our outcomes. This resulted in the identification of 32 unique preference methods. The developed compendium and taxonomy can serve as an important resource for assessing these methods and helping to determine which are most appropriate for different research questions at varying points in the medical product lifecycle.