Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives

Preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment among non-small cell lung cancer patients in China

BACKGROUND

Ensuring equal access to affordable, high-quality, and satisfied healthcare for cancer patients is a challenge worldwide. Our study aimed to investigate preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in China.

METHODS

We identified six attributes of new anticancer drugs and adopted a Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice scenarios for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The one-on-one, face-to-face DCE was conducted in four cities in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was used to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Data from 486 patients were available for analysis. The most valuable attribute was the out-of-pocket cost if reimbursed (RI = 32.25%), followed by extension of overall survival (RI = 15.99%), and low incidence of serious side effects (RI = 14.45%). Patients had the highest willingness to pay for the comparative 9-month' extension of overall survival. Patients with advanced NSCLC were more likely to expect new anticancer drugs could improve HRQoL (p < 0.01) and require fewer out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Older patients and patients with low income cared more about the out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Health insurance policymakers need to consider the affordability, comparative survival benefits, comparative safety, and comparative patient-reported outcomes of new anticancer drugs. The findings also highlight the need to ensure affordability for older patients, low-income patients, and patients with advanced cancer.

Understanding patient cost-sharing thresholds for diabetes treatment attributes via a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND: The process used to prefer certain products across drug classes for diabetes is generally focused on comparative effectiveness and cost. However, payers rarely tie patient preference for treatment attributes to formulary management resulting in a misalignment of value defined by providers, payers, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for the predetermined high-value and low-value type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatments within a health plan. METHODS: A cross-sectional discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was used to determine patient preference for the benefit, risk, and cost attributes of T2DM treatments. A comprehensive literature review of patient preference studies in diabetes and a review of guidelines and medical literature identified study attributes. Patients and diabetes experts were interviewed and instructed to identify, prioritize, and comment on which attributes of diabetes treatments were most important to T2DM patients. The patients enrolled in a health plan were asked to respond to the survey. A multinomial logit model was developed to determine the relative importance and the patient's WTP of each attribute. The patients' relative values based on WTPs for T2DM treatments were calculated and compared with the treatments by a health plan. RESULTS: A total of 7 attributes were selected to develop a web-based DCE questionnaire survey. The responses from a total of 58 patients were analyzed. Almost half (48.3%) of the respondents took oral medications and injections for T2DM. The most prevalent side effects due to diabetes medications were gastrointestinal (43.1%), followed by weight gain (39.7%) and nausea (32.8%). Patients were willing to pay more for treatments with proven cardiovascular benefit and for the risk reduction of hospitalization from heart failure. On the other hand, they would pay less for treatments with higher gastrointestinal side effects. Patients were willing to pay the most for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist agents and the least for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information to better align patient, provider, and payer preferences in both benefit design and value-based formulary strategy for diabetes treatments. A preferred placement of treatments with cardiovascular benefits and lower adverse gastrointestinal side effects may lead to increased adherence to medications and improved clinical outcomes at a lower overall cost to both patients and their health plan. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by a grant from the PhRMA Foundation.

Patients' Preference Between DPP4i and SGLT2i for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation

PURPOSE

Despite newer type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications, patients do not always achieve metabolic targets, remaining at risk for cardiorenal complications. Therapeutic decisions are generally made by the healthcare team without considering patients' preferences. We aimed to evaluate patients' T2D treatment preference in two Latin-American countries between two different oral medication profiles, one resembling dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and another resembling sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional, multicenter study from June to September 2020, patients with T2D from Argentina and Mexico (n = 390) completed a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to identify preferences between DPP4i (medication profile A) and SGLT2i (medication profile B). The reason behind patients' choice, and the association between their baseline characteristics and their preference were evaluated using logistic regression methods.

RESULTS

Most participants (88.2%) preferred SGLT2i's profile. Participants with older age (p = 0.0346), overweight or obesity (p < 0.0001), high blood pressure (BP; p < 0.0001), high total cholesterol (p = 0.0360), and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7% (p = 0.0001) were more likely to choose SGLT2i compared with DPP4i's profile. The most and least important reasons to choose either drug profile were HbA1c reduction and genital infection risk, respectively. The likelihood of selecting the SGLT2i's profile significantly increased in participants with increased body mass index (BMI; odds ratio [OR] = 8.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.5-22.5, p < 0.05), high BP (OR = 4.9, 95% CI: 1.9-12.4, p < 0.05), and lower education level (OR = 3.6, 95% CI: 1.0-12.6, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Latin-American patients with T2D preferred medication with a profile resembling SGLT2i over one resembling DPP4i as a treatment option. A patient-centered approach may aid the healthcare team in decision-making for improved outcomes.

Patients' Preferences for Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

PURPOSE

To determine patients' preferences for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based discrete choice experiment was conducted among US adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in May 2021. Six attributes-the route and frequency of administration, the chance of reaching target HbA1c in six months, the percentage reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the chance of gastrointestinal side effects, the chance of genital infection, and out-of-pocket cost per month-were identified from literature review and consultation with patients and clinicians. A Bayesian efficient design was used to generate choice sets. Each choice set contained two hypothetical SGLT-2i and GLP-1 RA alternatives described by the attributes and an opt-out alternative. A total of 176 patients were asked to select the most preferred option from each choice set. Mixed logit (ML) and latent class (LC) models were developed. The conditional relative importance of each attribute was determined.

RESULTS

The ML model showed the out-of-pocket cost had the highest conditional relative importance, followed by the chance of reaching the target HbA1c. The best LC model revealed two patient classes. All attributes were significantly important to the patients in both classes, except the chance of genital infection in class 2. Compared to the patients in class 2, the patients in class 1 were older (approximately 65 vs 56 years) and had a higher number of comorbidities (approximately three vs two).

CONCLUSION

T2DM patients placed different preference weights or importance across SGLT-2i and GLP-1 RA attributes. Preference heterogeneity was found among patients with different ages and numbers of comorbidities.

Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences

To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals' opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro- and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9-point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7-9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4-6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline-MCID. Healthcare professionals' preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.

Differences in Importance Attached to Drug Effects Between Patients With Type 2 Diabetes From the Netherlands and Turkey: A Preference Study

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the importance that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the Netherlands and Turkey attach to certain drug effects of oral anti-diabetic drugs. Methods: Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey containing demographic questions and a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for oral anti-diabetic drugs. Adults from the Netherlands and Turkey were included if they had type 2 diabetes mellitus and had received a prescription of an oral anti-diabetic drug in the last 4 months. The oral anti-diabetic drugs in the discrete choice experiment were described in terms of six attributes: effects on HbA1c, cardiovascular diseases, weight change, gastrointestinal adverse drug events hypoglycemic events, and bladder cancer. Multinomial logit models with country as an interaction factor were fitted. Results: In total, 381 patients were included, 199 from the Netherlands and 182 from Turkey. Patients' preferences toward drug effects varied between the countries. Turkish patients attached the highest importance to reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.51, 95% CI 0.45-0.55), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.16, 95% CI 0.11-0.22), and reducing gastrointestinal adverse drug events (relative weight: 0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18). Patients from the Netherlands attached the highest importance to gastrointestinal ADEs (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.39), followed by reducing hypoglycemic events (relative weight: 0.22, 95% CI 0.16-0.25), and reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (relative weight: 0.20, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). Conclusion: Patient preferences may differ across countries. Such differences should be acknowledged in regulatory decisions and clinical practice.

Use of Patient Preference Information in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Health Technology Assessment, and Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: A Systematic Literature Review of Attempts and Initiatives

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers—regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)—are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making.

Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit–risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes.

Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit–risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making.

Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

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.

Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit-Risk Decisions

Benefit-risk assessment is used in various phases along the drug lifecycle, such as marketing authorization and surveillance, health technology assessment (HTA), and clinical decisions, to understand whether, and for which patients, a drug has a favorable or more valuable profile with reference to one or more comparators. Such assessments are inherently preference-based as several clinical and nonclinical outcomes of varying importance might act as evaluation criteria, and decision makers must establish acceptable trade-offs between these outcomes. Different healthcare stakeholder perspectives, such as those from patients and healthcare professionals, are key for informing benefit-risk trade-offs. However, the degree to which such preferences inform the decision is often unclear as formal preference-based evaluation frameworks are generally not used for regulatory decisions, and, if used, rarely communicated in HTA decisions. We argue that for better decisions, as well as for reasons of transparency, preferences in benefit-risk decisions should more often be quantified and communicated explicitly.

Precision medicine in diabetes and diabetic kidney disease: Regulatory considerations

Over the past 15 years, three new classes of drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes based on effects on glycemic control. Although large randomized controlled trials have played an important role in characterizing the efficacy and safety of these agents on a population level, questions remain about how best to individualize therapy and target the "right" medicine to the "right" patient. In contrast, few medicines have been approved to treat diabetic kidney disease and initiatives have been launched on both sides of the Atlantic to facilitate the development of effective personalized medicines for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease. Increasingly, "omics," imaging and other biomarkers will be used to match patients with therapies to which they are likely to respond best. This review addresses regulatory considerations related to precision medicine, draws lessons learned from other therapeutic areas and discusses efforts undertaken by the European (EMA) and United States (FDA) to facilitate the development of such therapies. Moving forward, an integrated approach that makes use of predictive preclinical models, innovative trial designs, observational "real-world" data and novel statistical methodologies will likely be needed to complement inherently smaller RCTs conducted in more selected populations. Patient involvement will also be critical. Regulatory agencies are ready to engage in such approaches.

Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review

Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States

Introduction

Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making.

Methods

The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing.

Results

The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives.

Funding

Ipsen Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0653-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVES

To review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.

METHODS

A systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

Factors related to drug approvals: predictors of outcome?

There is growing interest in characterising factors associated with positive regulatory outcomes for drug marketing authorisations. We assessed empirical studies published over the past 15 years seeking to identify predictive factors. Factors were classified to one of four 'factor clusters': evidentiary support; product or indication characteristics; company experience or strategy; social and regulatory factors. We observed a heterogeneous mix of technical factors (e.g., study designs, clinical evidence of efficacy) and less studied social factors (e.g., company-regulator interactions). We confirmed factors known to be of relevance to drug approval decisions (imperative) and a cohort of less understood (compensatory) social factors. Having robust supportive clinical evidence, addressing rare or serious illness, following scientific advice and prior company experience were associated with positive outcomes, which illustrated the multifactorial nature of regulatory decision making and factors need to be considered holistically while having varying, context-dependent importance.