Background

Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients’ healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making.

Objectives

The aims were to: 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information.

Methods

A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted.

Results

Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future.

Conclusion

Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders.

Background

There is increasing interest in involving patient preferences for benefits and risks in regulatory decision making. Therefore, it is essential to identify patient perspectives regarding the value of patient preference information (PPI).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to explore how patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) value the use of PPI in regulatory decision making regarding medical products.

Methods

Regulators and patients with RA were interviewed to gather initial insights into opinions on the use of PPI in regulatory decisions regarding medical products. The interviews were used to draft and validate the interview guide for focus groups with patients with RA. Participants were purposively sampled in collaboration with the Swedish Rheumatism Association in Stockholm and Uppsala. Each focus group consisted of three to six patients (18 in total). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using content analysis.

Results

According to the participants, PPI could lead to regulators considering patients’ needs, lifestyles and well-being when making decisions. PPI was important in all stages of the medical product lifecycle. Participants reported that, when participating in a preference study, it is important to be well-informed about the use of the study and the development, components, administration, and risks related to the medical products.

Conclusions

Patients thought PPI could be valuable to consider in regulatory decisions. It is essential for patients to be well-informed when asked for their preferences. Research on information materials to inform patients in preference studies is needed to increase the value of PPI in regulatory decision making.

Background

Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.

Methods

Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients’ choices.

Conclusion

Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

Objectives

There is an increased interest in patient preferences informing the development and authorisation of medical products. A requirement for robust and meaningful results of such studies is that patients adequately understand the risks and benefits associated with treatments for which their preferences are elicited. This study aims to determine the influence of an educational tool, compared with traditional written information on patient preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

Methods

Treatment preferences of Swedish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed using a DCE. Patients were recruited via clinics, a research panel, and the Swedish Rheumatism Association. Respondents received training materials either as plain written text or as an online educational tool. The educational tool was designed to enhance understanding of the written text by using graphics, pictograms, icon arrays, spoken text, and click-on functions. Data were analysed using random parameter logit models.

Results

675 patients with RA were included in the analysis. The patients received either a written information (n = 358) or information via an educational tool (n = 317). Respondents receiving the educational tool placed relatively more importance on all included side effects in their decision making, compared to respondents receiving the written text, who placed greater importance on treatment effectiveness and administration methods.

Conclusion

Compared to the respondents receiving the written text, the decisions of respondents receiving the educational tool were more influenced by medication side effects. Further research is needed to provide guidance on how and when to use educational tools to inform and elicit patients’ preferences.

Practice implications

The ways in which attributes are presented to patients significantly impacts preferences measured in a DCE.