Key informant views on potential acceptability and feasibility of long-acting antiretroviral treatment for HIV in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 14% of diagnosed persons living with HIV (PLWH) in Kenya were not taking antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 19% of those on ART had unsuppressed viral loads. Long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) may increase viral suppression by promoting ART uptake and adherence. We conducted key informant (KI) interviews with HIV experts in Kenya to identify product and delivery attributes related to the acceptability and feasibility of providing LA-ART to PLWH in Kenya. METHODS: Interviews were conducted via Zoom on potential LA-ART options including intra-muscular (IM) injections, subcutaneous (SC) injections, implants, and LA oral pills. KI were asked to discuss the products they were most and least excited about, as well as barriers and facilitators to LA-ART roll-out. In addition, they were asked about potential delivery locations for LA-ART products such as homes, pharmacies, and clinics. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: Twelve KI (5 women, 7 men) participated between December 2021 and February 2022. Overall, participants reported that LA-ART would be acceptable and preferable to PLWH because of fatigue with daily oral pills. They viewed IM injections and LA oral pills as the most exciting options to ease pill burden and improve adherence. KI felt that populations who could benefit most were adolescents in boarding schools and stigmatized populations such as sex workers. SC injections and implants were less favored, as they would require new training initiatives for patients or healthcare workers on administration. In addition, SC injections would require refrigeration and needle disposal after use. Some KI thought patients, especially men, might worry that IM injections and implants would impact fertility, given their role in family planning. Pharmacies were perceived by most KI as suboptimal delivery locations; however, given ongoing work in Kenya to include pharmacies in antiretroviral delivery, they recommended asking patients their views. CONCLUSION: There is interest and support for LA-ART in Kenya, especially IM injections and LA oral pills. Identifying patient preferences for modes and delivery locations and addressing misconceptions about specific products as they become available will be important before wide-scale implementation.

Patient preferences in genetic newborn screening for rare diseases: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Rare diseases (RDs) collectively impact over 30 million people in Europe. Most individual conditions have a low prevalence which has resulted in a lack of research and expertise in this field, especially regarding genetic newborn screening (gNBS). There is increasing recognition of the importance of incorporating patients' needs and general public perspectives into the shared decision-making process regarding gNBS. This study is part of the Innovative Medicine Initiative project Screen4Care which aims at shortening the diagnostic journey for RDs by accelerating diagnosis for patients living with RDs through gNBS and the use of digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Our objective will be to assess expecting parent's perspectives, attitudes and preferences regarding gNBS for RDs in Italy and Germany. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed method approach will assess perspectives, attitudes and preferences of (1) expecting parents seeking genetic consultation and (2) 'healthy' expecting parents from the general population in two countries (Germany and Italy). Focus groups and interviews using the nominal group technique and ranking exercises will be performed (qualitative phase). The results will inform the treatment of attributes to be assessed via a survey and a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The total recruitment sample will be 2084 participants (approximatively 1000 participants in each country for the online survey). A combination of thematic qualitative and logit-based quantitative approaches will be used to analyse the results of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Erlangen University Ethics Committee (22-246_1-B), the Freiburg University Ethics Committee (23-1005 S1-AV) and clinical centres in Italy (University of FerraraCE: 357/2023/Oss/AOUFe and Hospedale Bambino Gesu: No.2997 of 2 November 2023, Prot. No. _902) and approved for data storage and handling at the Uppsala University (2022-05806-01). The dissemination of the results will be ensured via scientific journal publication (open access).

Understanding Clinician Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Oncology: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Oncologists' and Urologists' Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced/Unresectable Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK. METHODS: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis. RESULTS: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians. CONCLUSION: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Using Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Survival Equivalents (QASE) for the Quantification of Non-health Benefits.

Interest in using patient preference (PP) data alongside traditional economic models in health technology assessment (HTA) is growing, including using PP data to quantify non-health benefits. However, this is limited by a lack of standardised methods. In this article, we describe a method for using discrete choice experiment (DCE) data to estimate the value of non-health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted survival equivalence (QASE), which is consistent with the concept of value prevalent among HTA agencies. We describe how PP data can be used to estimate QASE, assess the ability to test the face-validity of QASE estimates of changes in mode of administration calculated from five published DCE oncology studies and review the methodological and normative considerations associated with using QASE to support HTA. We conclude that QASE may have some methodological advantages over alternative methods, but this requires DCEs to estimate second-order effects between length and quality of life. In addition, empirical work has yet to be undertaken to substantiate this advantage and demonstrate the validity of QASE. Further work is also required to align QASE with normative objectives of HTA agencies. Estimating QASE would also have implications for the conduct of DCEs, including standardising and defining more clear attribute definitions.

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.

Adult, adolescent, and caregiver preferences for attributes of topical treatments for mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: a discrete-choice experiment.

Purpose: Topical treatments for mild-to-moderate (MM) atopic dermatitis (AD) include emollients, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, a Janus kinase inhibitor, and a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, which differ in multiple ways. This study aimed to quantify the conditional relative importance (CRI) of attributes of topical treatments for MM AD among adult and adolescent patients and caregivers of children with MM AD.Materials and methods: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered to US adults and adolescents with MM AD and caregivers of children with MM AD. Each choice task comprised 2 hypothetical topical treatments characterized by efficacy, adverse events, vehicle, and application frequency. Data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model to calculate the CRI of each attribute.Results and conclusions: 300 adults, 331 adolescents, and 330 caregivers completed the DCE. Avoiding changes in skin color (CRI 29.0) and time until itch improves (26.6) were most important to adults, followed by time until clear/almost clear skin (17.8). Application frequency (3.0) did not have a statistically significant impact on adults' choices. Adolescents were less concerned about changes in skin color than adults or caregivers; caregivers were less concerned about time until clear/almost clear skin than patients. Physicians should consider age-relevant aspects of preferences in treatment discussions with patients and caregivers.

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.

Priority Outcomes in Sickle Cell Disease Treatment: Co-Creation and Implementation of a Preference Exercise With Patients and Caregivers to Inform Drug Development.

Involving patients as co-leaders and co-creators in research is key to reflecting the patient's voice in decision-making. However, co-creation of patient-centered data to inform decisions is rare, especially in early drug development where patient input is critical to prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes and endpoints for use in clinical trials. Despite the industry's growing commitment to patient centricity, most patients are excluded from sharing their expertise in research; more inclusive methods of engaging patients as research partners are needed. We describe a collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and a patient organization in co-leading and co-creating a program to understand priorities of patients and caregivers for treatment features and outcomes in sickle cell disease to inform endpoint selection in clinical development. The results of this program will be used as a basis for continued interaction between patients and the sponsor and to inform ongoing clinical development and evidence-generation activities. This case study demonstrates an approach to meaningful collaborations between patient organizations and pharmaceutical companies aimed at including the patient's voice early in the medical product lifecycle.

Maximum Acceptable Risk Estimation Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Probabilistic Threshold Technique.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to empirically compare maximum acceptable risk results estimated using both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). METHODS: Members of the UK general public (n = 982) completed an online survey including a DCE and a PTT (in random order) measuring their preferences for preventative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. For the DCE, a Bayesian D-efficient design consisting of four blocks of 15 choice tasks was constructed including six attributes with varying levels. The PTT used identical risk and benefit attributes. For the DCE, a panel mixed-logit model was conducted, both mean and individual estimates were used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. For the PTT, interval regression was used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. Perceived complexity of the choice tasks and preference heterogeneity were investigated for both methods. RESULTS: Maximum acceptable risk confidence intervals of both methods overlapped for serious infection and serious side effects but not for mild side effects (maximum acceptable risk was 32.7 percent-points lower in the PTT). Although, both DCE and PTT tasks overall were considered easy or very easy to understand and answer, significantly more respondents rated the DCE choice tasks as easier to understand compared with those who rated the PTT as easier (7-percentage point difference; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Maximum acceptable risk estimate confidence intervals based on a DCE and a PTT overlapped for two out of the three included risk attributes. More respondents rated the DCE as easier to understand. This may suggest that the DCE is better suited in studies estimating maximum acceptable risk for multiple risk attributes of differing severity, while the PTT may be better suited when measuring heterogeneity in maximum acceptable risk estimates or when investigating one or more serious adverse events.

Eliciting preferences for cancer screening tests: Comparison of a discrete choice experiment and the threshold technique.

OBJECTIVE: To compare results of three preference elicitation methods for a cancer screening test. METHODS: Participants (undergraduate students) completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) task. Accuracy (false positives, false negatives), benefits (lives saved), and cost for a cancer screening test were used as attributes in the DCE and branching logic for the TT. Participants were also asked a direct elicitation question regarding a hypothetical screening test for breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer without mortality benefit. Correlations assessed the relationship between DCE and TT thresholds. Thresholds were standardized and ranked for both methods to compare. A logistic regression used the thresholds to predict results of the direct elicitation. RESULTS: DCE and TT estimates were not meaningfully correlated (max ρ = 0.17). Participant rankings of attributes matched only 20% of the time (58/292). Neither method predicted preference for being screened (ps > 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The DCE and TT yielded different preference estimates (and rank orderings) for the same participant. Neither method predicted patients' desires for a screening test. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians, patients, policy makers, and researchers should be aware that patient preference results may be sensitive to the method of eliciting preferences.

U.S. patient preferences for long-acting HIV treatment: a discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Recent advances in long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) could provide new options for HIV treatment and reduce adherence barriers, if regimens are acceptable to patients. We elicited preferences for key attributes of potential LA-ART regimens among people with HIV (PWH) in the United States, focusing on four treatment modes (oral tablets, subcutaneous injections, intramuscular injections, and implants), product characteristics and location of administration. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted among PWH aged ≥18 years recruited from HIV clinics in Washington State and Atlanta, Georgia from March 2021 to June 2022. Participants responded to 17 choice scenarios, each with three options: two systematically generated hypothetical LA-ART regimens and a constant opt-out (their current daily oral treatment). LA-ART regimen descriptions included treatment mode, pain, dosing frequency, location, pre-treatment time with undetectable viral load, pre-treatment negative reaction testing and "late-dose leeway" (i.e. flexibility or forgiveness in timing the next dose). We used conditional logistic regression, with an interaction between treatment mode and pain, to estimate preference weights for all attribute levels. RESULTS: Seven hundred participants (350 at each site) enrolled, with median age 51 years (range 18-73); 70% identified as cisgender male, 24% as cisgender female and 6% as non-binary or transgender. LA oral tablets were the only mode preferred over current daily oral treatment, with annual implants and injections the next most preferred LA-ART option. Longer time between doses was preferred, and administration at home was preferred to clinics, which were preferred to pharmacies. Attributes with less impact on preferences included oral lead-in treatment to achieve viral suppression or test for negative reactions and late-dose leeway around the prescribed dosing interval. Participants in Atlanta were more likely to prefer their current daily oral ART than participants from Seattle. CONCLUSIONS: PWH in the United States may soon have several options for LA-ART. Our results suggest that LA oral tablets will be preferred by many patients over their current daily oral treatment, while implants and injections with longer duration may be acceptable to some. Future research should investigate sources of preference heterogeneity and actual uptake of and adherence to LA-ART products, when available.

Preference for daily oral pills over long-acting antiretroviral therapy options among people with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of people with HIV (PWH) who prefer remaining on daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART), rather than switching to long-acting ART (LA-ART). DESIGN: Building upon a discrete choice experiment (DCE), we examined characteristics of individuals who always selected their current daily oral tablet regimen over either of two hypothetical LA-ART options presented in a series of 17 choice tasks. METHODS: We used LASSO to select sociodemographic, HIV-related, and other health-related predictors of preferring current therapy over LA-ART, and logistic regression to measure the associations with those characteristics. RESULTS: Among 700 PWH in Washington State and Atlanta, Georgia, 11% of participants ( n  = 74) chose their current daily treatment over LA-ART in all DCE choice tasks. We found that people with lower educational attainment, good adherence, more aversion to injections, and who participated from Atlanta to be more likely to prefer their current daily regimen over LA-ART. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in ART uptake and adherence remain, and emerging LA-ART treatments show promise to address these challenges and help a larger portion of PWH to achieve viral suppression, but preferences for these new treatments are understudied. Our results show that certain drawbacks of LA-ART may help to maintain demand for daily oral tablets, especially for PWH with certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics (lower educational attainment and Atlanta participation) were also associated with a lack of viral suppression. Future research should focus on overcoming barriers that impact preferences for LA-ART among those patients who could benefit most from this innovation.

Use of Bayesian decision analysis to maximize value in patient-centered randomized clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.

A fixed one-sided significance level of 5% is commonly used to interpret the statistical significance of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. While it is necessary to reduce the false positive rate, the threshold used could be chosen quantitatively and transparently to specifically reflect patient preferences regarding benefit-risk tradeoffs as well as other considerations. How can patient preferences be explicitly incorporated into RCTs in Parkinson's disease (PD), and what is the impact on statistical thresholds for device approval? In this analysis, we apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to PD patient preference scores elicited from survey data. BDA allows us to choose a sample size (n) and significance level (α) that maximizes the overall expected value to patients of a balanced two-arm fixed-sample RCT, where the expected value is computed under both null and alternative hypotheses. For PD patients who had previously received deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, the BDA-optimal significance levels fell between 4.0% and 10.0%, similar to or greater than the traditional value of 5%. Conversely, for patients who had never received DBS, the optimal significance level ranged from 0.2% to 4.4%. In both of these populations, the optimal significance level increased with the severity of the patients' cognitive and motor function symptoms. By explicitly incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial designs and the regulatory decision-making process, BDA provides a quantitative and transparent approach to combine clinical and statistical significance. For PD patients who have never received DBS treatment, a 5% significance threshold may not be conservative enough to reflect their risk-aversion level. However, this study shows that patients who previously received DBS treatment present a higher tolerance to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for improved efficacy which is reflected in a higher statistical threshold.

Assessing What Matters to People Affected by Alzheimer's Disease: A Quantitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In this phase of the ongoing What Matters Most study series, designed to evaluate concepts that are meaningful to people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD), we quantified the importance of symptoms, impacts, and outcomes of AD to people at risk for or with AD and care partners of people with AD. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to individuals at risk for or with AD (Group 1: unimpaired cognition with evidence of AD pathology; Group 2: AD risk factors and subjective cognitive complaints/mild cognitive impairment; Group 3: mild AD) and to care partners of individuals with moderate AD (Group 4) or severe AD (Group 5). Respondents rated the importance of 42 symptoms, impacts, and outcomes on a scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("extremely important"). RESULTS: Among the 274 respondents (70.4% female; 63.1% white), over half of patient respondents rated all 42 items as "very important" or "extremely important," while care partners rated fewer items as "very important" or "extremely important." Among the three patient groups, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating for any item was 3.4 (4.6), indicating that all items were at least moderately to very important. Among care partners of people with moderate or severe AD, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating was 2.1 (4.4), indicating that most items were rated as at least moderately important. Overall, taking medications correctly, not feeling down or depressed, and staying safe had the highest importance ratings among both patients and care partners, regardless of AD phase. CONCLUSION: Concepts of importance to individuals affected by AD go beyond the common understanding of "cognition" or "function" alone, reflecting a desire to maintain independence, overall physical and mental health, emotional well-being, and safety. Preservation of these attributes may be key to understanding whether interventions deliver clinically meaningful outcomes.

Technical Review of Clinical Outcomes Assessments Across the Continuum of Alzheimer's Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Insight into the relationship between concepts that matter to the people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the clinical outcome assessments (COAs) commonly used in AD clinical studies is limited. Phases 1 and 2 of the What Matters Most (WMM) study series identified and quantitatively confirmed 42 treatment-related outcomes that are important to people affected by AD. METHODS: We compared WMM concepts rated as "very important" or higher to items included in COAs used commonly in AD studies. RESULTS: Twenty COAs designed to assess signs, symptoms, and impacts across the spectrum of AD were selected for review. Among these 20 COAs, only 5 reflected 12 or more WMM concepts [Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory-Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-ADL-MCI), Alzheimer's Disease Composite Scores (ADCOMS), and Clinical Dementia Rating; Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR/CDR-SB)]. Multiple symptoms and impacts of AD identified as important and meaningful in the WMM studies map only indirectly at best to 7 of the 20 most widely used COAs. CONCLUSION: While many frequently used COAs in AD capture some concepts identified as important to AD populations and their care partners, overlap between any single measure and the concepts that matter to people affected by AD is limited. The highest singly matched COA reflects fewer than half (45%) of WMM concepts. Use of multiple COAs expands coverage of meaningful concepts. Future research should explore the content validity of AD COAs planned for AD trials based on further confirmation of the ecological validity of the WMM items. This research should inform development and use of core outcome sets that capture WMM items and selection or development of new companion tools to fully demonstrate clinically meaningful outcomes spanning WMM.

A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.

Leveraging Patient Preference Information in Medical Device Clinical Trial Design.

Use of robust, quantitative tools to measure patient perspectives within product development and regulatory review processes offers the opportunity for medical device researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders to evaluate what matters most to patients and support the development of products that can best meet patient needs. The medical device innovation consortium (MDIC) undertook a series of projects, including multiple case studies and expert consultations, to identify approaches for utilizing patient preference information (PPI) to inform clinical trial design in the US regulatory context. Based on these activities, this paper offers a cogent review of considerations and opportunities for researchers seeking to leverage PPI within their clinical trial development programs and highlights future directions to enhance this field. This paper also discusses various approaches for maximizing stakeholder engagement in the process of incorporating PPI into the study design, including identifying novel endpoints and statistical considerations, crosswalking between attributes and endpoints, and applying findings to the population under study. These strategies can help researchers ensure that clinical trials are designed to generate evidence that is useful to decision makers and captures what matters most to patients.

Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis: discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries. METHODS: A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit-risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated. RESULTS: Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes. CONCLUSION: Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics.

Considerations Around Coding the Membership Probability Function in a Latent Class Analysis: Renewed Insights.

This technical note discusses how dummy and effects coding of categorical respondent characteristics in a class membership probability function should be interpreted by researchers employing a latent class analysis to explore preference heterogeneity in a discrete-choice experiment. Previous work highlighted issues arising from such coding when interpreting an alternative specific constant that represents an opt-out alternative or current situation in a discrete-choice experiment and did not fully address how this coding impacts the interpretation of parameters resulting from the membership probability function in a latent class analysis. Although latent class membership probability could be predicted separately for each respondent or subgroup of respondents, conclusions are often drawn directly from the model estimation using the full sample, which requires correctly interpreting the estimated parameters. In these cases, the misinterpretation that may arise if the problem is ignored could impact the policy conclusions and recommendations drawn based on the discrete-choice experiment results. This note provides an example comparing dummy and effects coding used to model respondent characteristics in the membership probability function in a discrete-choice experiment aimed to explore preferences for the treatment of chronic pain in the USA.