Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms.

AIM

This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting.

METHOD

This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP.

CONCLUSION

GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Preferences of People Living with HIV for Long-Acting Antiretroviral Treatment in Germany: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elicit preferences for attributes of current and novel long-acting antiretroviral therapy for human immunodeficiency virus treatment.

METHODS

Primary survey data were collected (July-October 2022) on a sample of 333 people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Germany from a patient recruitment agency. Respondents were invited by e-mail to respond to a web-based questionnaire. After performing a systematic literature review, we conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews to identify and select the key attributes of drug therapy for patients' preferences for human immunodeficiency virus treatment. Based on this, a discrete choice experiment survey elicited preferences for long-acting antiretroviral therapy characteristics, including the type of medication, frequency of dosing, the location of treatment, the risk of both short-term and long-term side effects, as well as possible interactions with other medications or (party) drugs. A statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models. An additional latent class multinomial logit was performed to evaluate subgroup differences.

RESULTS

Overall, 226 respondents (86% male, mean age 46.1 years) were included in the analysis. The frequency of dosing (36.1%) and the risk of long-term side effects (28.2%) had the greatest influence on preferences. The latent class analysis identified two patient groups. While the first class (n = 135; 87% male, mean age 44.4 years) found the frequency of dosing (44.1%) to be most important, the second class (n = 91; 85% male, mean age 48.6 years) focused on the risk of long-term side effects (50.3%). The evaluation of structural variables showed that male respondents, those living in small cities or villages, and those with better health status results were significantly more likely to be assigned to the second class (p < 0.05 each).

CONCLUSIONS

All attributes included in our survey were important to participants when choosing an antiretroviral therapy. We found evidence that the frequency of dosing as well as the risk of long-term side effects have a particular impact on the acceptance of novel therapy regimens and should be considered in order to optimize adherence and satisfaction.

Patient Preferences in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Results of a Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment in Europe

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that can lead to a substantial reduction in quality of life. Recent studies revealed high levels of unmet care needs of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa, but their preferences in treatment decision making have scarcely been investigated. This study aimed to reveal which treatment attributes adult patients with HS in Europe consider most important in treatment decision-making.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted with adult patients with hidradenitis suppurativa in Europe to reveal which treatment attributes are most important when making treatment decisions. Participants were presented with 15 sets of two treatment options and asked for each to choose the treatment they preferred. The treatments were characterized by six attributes informed by a prior literature review and qualitative research: effectiveness, pain reduction, duration of treatment benefit, risk of mild adverse event, risk of serious infection, and mode of administration. A random parameter logit model was used to estimate patients' preferences with additional subgroup and latent class models used to explore any differences in preferences across patient groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nineteen adult patients with hidradenitis suppurativa were included in the analysis (90% women, mean age 38 years). For all six treatment attributes, significant differences were observed between levels. Given the range of levels of each attribute, the most important treatment attributes were effectiveness (47.9%), followed by pain reduction (17.3%), annual risk of a mild adverse event (14.4%), annual risk of a serious infection (10.3%), mode of administration (5.3%), and duration of treatment benefit (4.8%). Higher levels of effectiveness, namely a 75% or 100% reduction in the abscess and inflammatory nodule count, were preferred over levels of effectiveness primarily investigated in randomized clinical trials of hidradenitis suppurativa (a 50% reduction). Results were largely consistent across subgroups and three latent class groups were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed the most important treatment characteristics for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa that can help inform joint patient-physician decision making in the management of hidradenitis suppurativa. Designing future hidradenitis suppurativa treatments according to stated preferences, namely, to offer higher levels of effectiveness and pain improvement without higher risks of adverse events, may increase patients' treatment concordance and lead to improved disease management outcomes.

Patient Preferences for Rescue Medications in the Treatment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is conducted in this study to discuss Chinese cancer patients' risk-benefit preferences for rescue medications (RD) and their willingness to pay (WTP) in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

METHOD

Through literature reviews, specialist consultation, and patient surveys, this work finally included five attributes in the DCE questionnaire, i.e., the remission time of breakthrough pain, adverse reactions of the digestive system, adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system, administration routes, and drug costs (estimating patients' WTP). The alternative-specific conditional logit model is used to analyze patients' preferences and WTP for each attribute and its level and to assess the sociodemographic impact and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 134 effective questionnaires were collected from January, 1 to April, 5 in 2022. Results show that the five attributes all have a significant impact on cancer patients' choice of "rescue medications" (P<0.05). Among these attributes, the remission time after drug administration (10.0; 95%CI 8.5-11.5) is the most important concern for patients, followed by adverse reactions of the digestive system (8.5; 95%CI 7.0-10.0), adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system (2.9; 95%CI 1.4-4.3), and administration routes (0.9; 95%CI 0-1.8). The respondents are willing to spend 1182 yuan (95%CI 605-1720 yuan) per month for "rescue medications" to take effect within 15 minutes and spend 1002 yuan (95%CI 605-1760 yuan) per month on reducing the incidence of drug-induced adverse reactions in the digestive system to 5%.

CONCLUSION

For Chinese cancer patients, especially those with moderate/severe cancer pain, the priority is to relieve the BTcP more rapidly and reduce adverse drug reactions more effectively. This study indicates these patients' expectations for the quick control of breakthrough pain and their emphasis on the reduction of adverse reactions. These findings are useful for doctors, who are encouraged to communicate with cancer patients about how to better alleviate the BTcP.

Identifying participants' preferences for modifiable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy prevention clinical trial factors: an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis

PURPOSE

There are no recommended treatments for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) prevention. Recruitment to CIPN prevention clinical trials is challenging because it is difficult to enroll patients between the time of cancer diagnosis and the initiation of neurotoxic chemotherapy. The purpose of this exploratory-sequential mixed-methods study was to determine patients' preferences that could affect the choice to participate in CIPN prevention clinical trials.

METHODS

First, twenty cognitive interviews were conducted with adults who completed less than three neurotoxic chemotherapy infusions to clarify clinical trial attributes and levels thought to be important to patients when deciding whether to enroll in CIPN prevention trials (i.e., type of treatment, clinical tests, reimbursement, survey delivery; length of visits, timing of follow-up, when to begin treatment). Second, another eighty-eight patients completed an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis survey that incorporated the finalized attributes and levels. Each level was assigned a part-worth utility score using Hierarchical Bayes Estimation. The relative importance of each attribute was calculated.

RESULTS

The attributes with the highest relative importance values were type of treatment (27.1%) and length of study visits (20.2%). The preferred levels included non-medicine treatment (53.49%), beginning treatment after experiencing CIPN (60.47%), email surveys (63.95%), assessments that include surveys and clinical exams (39.53%), under 30-min visits (44.19%), $50/week reimbursement (39.53%), and 1-month post-chemotherapy follow-up visits (32.56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' preferences for participation may be included in the design of future CIPN prevention clinical trials to potentially bolster study enrollment.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Accounting for preference heterogeneity is a growing analytical practice in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs). As heterogeneity may be examined from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, identifying the breadth of these methodological approaches and understanding the differences are major steps to provide guidance on good research practices.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to systematically summarize current practices that account for preference heterogeneity based on the published DCEs related to healthcare.

METHODS

This systematic review is part of the project led by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) health preference research special interest group. The systematic review conducted systematic searches on the PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science databases, as well as on two recently published reviews, to identify articles. The review included health-related DCE articles published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2020. All the included articles also presented evidence on preference heterogeneity analysis based on either explained or unexplained factors or both.

RESULTS

Overall, 342 of the 2202 (16%) articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for extraction. The trend showed that analyses of preference heterogeneity increased substantially after 2010 and that such analyses mainly examined heterogeneity due to observable or unobservable factors in individual characteristics. Heterogeneity through observable differences (i.e., explained heterogeneity) is identified among 131 (40%) of the 342 articles and included one or more interactions between an attribute variable and an observable characteristic of the respondent. To capture unobserved heterogeneity (i.e., unexplained heterogeneity), the studies largely estimated either a mixed logit (n = 205, 60%) or a latent-class logit (n = 112, 32.7%) model. Few studies (n = 38, 11%) explored scale heterogeneity or heteroskedasticity.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing preference heterogeneity evidence in health-related DCEs has been found as an increasingly used practice among researchers. In recent studies, controlling for unexplained preference heterogeneity has been seen as a common practice rather than explained ones (e.g., interactions), yet a lack of providing methodological details has been observed in many studies that might impact the quality of analysis. As heterogeneity can be assessed from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, researchers should become more technically pronounced to increase confidence in the results and improve the ability of decision makers to act on the preference evidence.

Fear of nosocomial HIV infection may be a barrier to HIV testing among young college and university students in Suzhou, China

ObjectiveHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) test uptake among college and university students in China remains suboptimal. This study aimed to identify and weigh the relative importance of HIV testing preferences among university students in China. Participants and methods: Qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments (DCE) were used to identify and assess HIV testing preferences in hypothetical HIV testing scenarios. Study participants were sexually experienced university students in Suzhou city, China. Results: 198 participants completed 1980 DCE choice tasks. Risk of nosocomial HIV infection, accuracy, and distance were identified as the most important factors when deciding whether to test for HIV. Risk of nosocomial HIV infection was the most influential factor, accounting for 35.5% of the variation in participants' DCE stated choices. Conclusions: Fear of HIV nosocomial infection may be influencing HIV test preferences and possibly test uptake among university students in China. Interventions should consider addressing students' fear of HIV nosocomial infection as a potential barrier to HIV testing.

Exploring patient preference heterogeneity for pharmacological treatments for chronic pain: A latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

Several pharmaceutical treatments for chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are available or currently under development, each associated with different adverse events (AEs) and efficacy profiles. It is therefore important to understand what trade-offs patients are willing to make when choosing between treatments.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 437 adults with chronic pain caused by OA and/or CLBP. Respondents were presented with a series of scenarios and asked to choose between pairs of hypothetical treatments, each defined by six attributes: level of symptom control; risks of heart attack, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis and dependency; frequency and mode of administration and cost. Attributes were based on known profiles of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids and injected nerve growth factor inhibitors, the last of which were under clinical development at the time of the study. Data were analysed using a latent class (LC) model to explore preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Overall, respondents considered improving symptom control and reducing risk of physical dependency to be the most important attributes. The LC analysis identified four participant classes: an 'efficacy-focused' class (33.7%), a 'cost-averse' class (29.4%), a 'physical-dependence-averse' class (19.6%) and a 'needle-averse' class (17.3%). Subgroup membership was incompletely predicted by participant age and their responses to comprehension questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference heterogeneity across respondents indicates a need for a personalized approach to offering treatment options. Symptom improvement, cost, physical dependence and route of administration might be important to different patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Multiple treatment options that differ substantially in terms of efficacy and adverse events are available for the management of chronic pain. With a growing emphasis on a patient-centred care model that incorporates patients' priorities and values into treatment decisions, there is a need to understand how individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain balance the benefits and risks of treatment and how treatment priorities vary among individuals. This study was designed to identify patient preferences for different characteristics of treatments for the management of chronic pain and to investigate how preferences differ among respondents.

Concern about addiction is associated with lower quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis: an exploratory, real-world data analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relationship between self-reported concerns about becoming addicted to a medication and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

This real-world study used patient-level cross-sectional survey data collected from the US Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (DSP). The DSP for OA selected 153 physicians who collected de-identified data on their next nine adult patients with OA. Each patient completed a disease-relevant survey, which included the Likert-scale question, "I am concerned about becoming addicted to my medicine," (CAA) with responses ranging from "completely disagree" [1] to "completely agree" [5]. HRQoL was measured by the EQ-5D-5L index value and the EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A set of ordinary least squares regressions using HRQoL measures as outcomes and CAA as a continuous predictor were estimated. Standardized effect size (ES) was used to gauge the magnitude of effects.

RESULTS

A total of 866 patients with OA completed the survey (female, 61.2%; White, 77.7%; mean age, 64.2 years). Of the 775 patients who completed the CAA question, almost one-third responded that they "agree" (18%) or "completely agree" (11%), while 27% responded "completely disagree" and 20% "disagree." Regression analyses found that patients who have concerns about medication addiction have significantly different EQ-5D-5L index values and EQ VAS scores compared with patients who do not have this concern (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that concern about medication addiction in patients with OA may have an impact on patient HRQoL, with more concerned patients reporting poorer HRQoL outcomes.

The ACTTION Guide to Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments, part II: mitigating bias, maximizing value

Summaries of the articles included in part II of the ACTTION Guide to Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments are followed by brief overviews of methodologic considerations involving precision pain medicine, pragmatic clinical trials, real world evidence, and patient engagement in clinical trials.

Patients' Preferences Regarding Osteoarthritis Medications: An Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) patients consider ranges of harms and benefits offered by alternative pharmaceutical treatments. Choice-based experiments provide a mechanism to value outcomes, but they can pose a significant burden on respondents. Thus, the number of attributes studied is typically artificially restricted. We used an adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) method that allows the inclusion of more attributes affecting patients' preferences regarding non-invasive pharmaceutical treatment for OA than traditional choice-based technique to better understand the trade-offs that OA patients consider, without increasing respondents' burden.

METHODS

After consulting with OA patients and public involvement (PPI) group, we constructed an online ACBC survey consisting of 9 attributes and a total of 31 levels (two benefits, four harms and three concerning the availability and modality of treatment). A cohort of patients with a diagnosis of OA and reporting joint pain within the last 12 months were recruited.

RESULTS

Our study (n 43) showed that the most important factor in choosing OA medication was the risk of heart attacks and strokes (19.5%), followed by the risk of addiction (18.4%), risk of kidney and liver side effects (17.5%), risk stomach side effects (14.6%), availability (11.6%), frequency of use (5.3%), pain reduction (5%), way of taking medication (4.6%) and mobility improvement (3.5%).

CONCLUSION

ACBC provides a mechanism for understanding patient preferences that address the limitations of traditional choice-based experiments. For OA patients, avoidance of the risk of side effects were the most affecting medication choices, and reductions in pain and mobility were the least. Clinicians discussing options for medication with OA patients should discuss the potential trade-offs in terms of risks and benefits.

Oral or Topical Pain Therapy-How Would Patients Decide? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

To ensure an adequate pain therapy with high patient adherence, it is necessary to know and consider patient preferences. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain patients' preferences regarding treatment with systemic or topical pain medication. Patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (pNP) were recruited in two pain-focused practices in Germany. To identify relevant attributes of topical or systemic pain medication, a literature review and face-to-face interviews with experts for pain treatment were conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were noticeable onset of effect, time spent in medical office, risk of systemic and local side effects, and impairment of daily life with regard to sleep quality and sexuality. The model was estimated with a mixed multinomial logit regression model. The study included 153 participants suffering from moderate to severe pNP. Most important attributes from patient's perspective was noticeable onset of effect (odds ratio 2.141 [95% confidence interval 1.837 to 2.494]), followed by risk of systemic side effects (2.038 [1.731 to 2.400]) and risk of sexual dysfunction (1.839 [1.580 to 2.140]), while risk of local side effects regarding skin ranked fourth (1.612 [1.321 to 1.966]). The impairment of sleep quality was also significant but less important (1.556 [1.346 to 1.798]). Local side effects were more likely to be accepted than systemic side effects. The risk of sexual dysfunction as a side effect of treatment is very important for patients, although it has received little attention in the literature.

Respondent Understanding in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Despite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how ‘understanding’ is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context.

Objectives

Our aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used.

Methods

Searches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study.

Results

Of 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents’ engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent.

Conclusions

Those conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-020-00467-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient preferences for osteoarthritis pain and chronic low back pain treatments in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To quantify preferences for attributes of potential analgesic treatments for moderate-to-severe pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and/or chronic low back pain (CLBP) as relevant to injectable nerve growth factor (NGF)-inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids.

METHODS

We used a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences for attributes of OA and CLBP pharmaceutical treatments, and a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise to further characterize the relative importance of treatment-related side-effect risks. The survey was completed online by 602 US residents with self-reported chronic, moderate-to-severe OA pain and/or CLBP who had tried, had contraindications for, or were unwilling to take currently available pharmaceutical therapies. In the DCE, respondents repeatedly chose between two hypothetical treatments defined by six attributes (symptom control; treatment-related risks of (1) severe joint problems, (2) heart attack, and (3) physical dependence; mode/frequency of administration; and cost). In the BWS exercise, respondents evaluated ten side-effect risks. Random-parameters logit models were estimated; conditional relative attribute importance, maximum acceptable risks, and willingness to pay were calculated.

RESULTS

The most important DCE attributes were improving symptom control (scaled conditional relative importance, 10.00) and reducing risk of physical dependence (6.99). The three most important BWS attributes were, in rank order, risks of stroke, physical dependence, and heart attack. Respondents were willing to accept a > 4% treatment-related risk of severe joint problems for even modest symptom improvement.

CONCLUSION

A pharmaceutical treatment with a risk of severe joint problems was viewed as an acceptable alternative to other treatments with comparable efficacy but risks associated with NSAIDs or opioids.

Patient Values and Preferences Regarding Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review

Objective

Shared-care decision-making between patients and clinicians involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of management strategies. Although patient values and preferences should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines consider the relevant evidence when formulating recommendations. To inform a guideline for use of opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain, we conducted a systematic review of studies exploring values and preferences of affected patients toward opioid therapy.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from the inception of each database through October 2016. We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to managing chronic noncancer pain and studies that assessed how opioid-using chronic noncancer pain patients value alternative health states and their experiences with treatment. We compiled structured summaries of the results.

Results

Pain relief and nausea and vomiting were ranked as highly significant outcomes across studies. When considered, the adverse effect of personality changes was rated as equally important. Constipation was assessed in most studies and was an important outcome, secondary to pain relief and nausea and vomiting. Of only two studies that evaluated addiction, both found it less important to patients than pain relief. No studies examined opioid overdose, death, or diversion.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the adverse effects of opioids, especially nausea and vomiting, may reduce or eliminate any net benefit of opioid therapy unless pain relief is significant (>2 points on a 10-point scale). Further research should investigate patient values and preferences regarding opioid overdose, diversion, and death.

A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding patient medicine preferences for managing chronic non-cancer pain

INTRODUCTION

High rates of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), concerns about adverse effects including dependence among those prescribed potent pain medicines, the recent evidence supporting active rather than passive management strategies and a lack of funding for holistic programme have resulted in challenges around decision making for treatment among clinicians and their patients. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are one way of assessing and valuing treatment preferences. Here, we outline a protocol for a study that assesses patient preferences for CNCP treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A final list of attributes (and their levels) for the DCE was generated using a detailed iterative process. This included a literature review, a focus group and individual interviews with those with CNCP and clinicians who treat people with CNCP. From this process a list of attributes was obtained. Following a review by study investigators including pain and addiction specialists, pharmacists and epidemiologists, the final list of attributes was selected (number of medications, risk of addiction, side effects, pain interference, activity goals, source of information on pain, provider of pain care and out-of-pocket costs). Specialised software was used to construct an experimental design for the survey. The survey will be administered to two groups of participants, those from a longitudinal cohort of patients receiving opioids for CNCP and a convenience sample of patients recruited through Australia's leading pain advocacy body (Painaustralia) and their social media and website. The data from the two participant groups will be initially analysed separately, as their demographic and clinical characteristics may differ substantially (in terms of age, duration of pain and current treatment modality). Mixed logit and latent class analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity of responses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the University of New South Wales Sydney Human Ethics committee HC16511 (for the focus group discussions, the one-on-one interviews and online survey) and HC16916 (for the cohort). A lay summary will be made available on the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre website and Painaustralia's website. Peer review papers will be submitted, and it is expected the results will be presented at relevant pain management conferences nationally and internationally. These results will also be used to improve understanding of treatment goals between clinicians and those with CNCP.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future

OBJECTIVES

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

RESULTS

Of the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

To take or not to take: the association between perceived addiction risk, expected analgesic response and likelihood of trying novel pain relievers in self-identified chronic pain patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Probability discounting refers to the effect of outcome uncertainty on decision making. Using probability discounting, we examined the degree to which self-identified chronic pain patients (CPP) were likely to try a novel analgesic medication given increasing addiction risk. We postulated that propensity for opioid misuse, trait impulsivity and previous opioid experience would be associated positively with likelihood of risky medication use.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional on-line study determined state/trait associations with addiction-related medication decisions in CPP.

SETTING

US-based CPP participated via Amazon Mechanical Turk; data were collected and analyzed in Baltimore, Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 263 CPP (70.6% female) participated in the study from 12-13 December 2014.

MEASUREMENTS

CPP responded to the Benefit versus Addiction Risk Questionnaire (BARQ) assessing likelihood of taking a hypothetical once-daily oral analgesic medication as a function of two factors: risk of addiction (0-50%) and duration of expected complete pain relief (3, 30 or 365 days). The primary outcome was the BARQ, quantified as area under the curve (AUC). Grouping of CPP at high or low risk for opioid misuse was based on the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R). Predictors included previous experience with opioids, as well as various measures of chronic pain and mental health.

FINDINGS

Across hypothetical addiction risk assessed in the BARQ, the likelihood of taking a novel analgesic medication was elevated significantly in patients with high (≥18; n = 137) versus low (<18; n = 126) SOAPP-R scores [P < 0.001; 3-day: Cohen's d = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63, 0.69; 30-day: d = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.78; 365-day: d = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.79].

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, self-identified chronic pain patients (CPP) at higher risk for opioid misuse were more likely to report willingness to try a novel analgesic despite increasing addiction risk than CPP with low risk of opioid misuse.

[Involving patients, the insured and the general public in healthcare decision making]

No doubt, the public should be involved in healthcare decision making, especially when decision makers from politics and self-government agencies are faced with the difficult task of setting priorities. There is a general consensus on the need for a stronger patient centeredness, even in HTA processes, and internationally different ways of public participation are discussed and tested in decision making processes. This paper describes how the public can be involved in different decision situations, and it shows how preference measurement methods are currently being used in an international context to support decision making. It distinguishes between different levels of decision making on health technologies: approval, assessment, pricing, and finally utilization. The range of participation efforts extends from qualitative surveys of patients' needs (Citizen Councils of NICE in the UK) to science-based documentation of quantitative patient preferences, such as in the current pilot projects of the FDA in the US and the EMA at the European level. Possible approaches for the elicitation and documentation of preference structures and trade-offs in relation to alternate health technologies are decision aids, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), that provide the necessary information for weighting and prioritizing decision criteria.