Search

AbstractBackground:The aims of this study were to quantify and contrast patient preferences between second-line advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) medication profiles and their associated benefits and toxicities, and to help frame the doctor–patient discussion about selecting appropriate RCC therapies.Research design and methods:Adult residents of the US with a diagnosis of RCC completed a Web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey consisting of a series of 10 treatment-choice questions, each of which included a pair of hypothetical RCC medication profiles. Each profile was described by various medication attributes (features or outcomes) with varying levels. The attributes included efficacy (progression-free survival [PFS]), tolerability (fatigue, stomach problems, mucositis or stomatitis, hand–foot syndrome [HFS]), serious but rare adverse events (pneumonitis, hepatic impairment), and mode of administration. Treatment-choice questions were based on an experimental design with known statistical properties. Random-parameters logit regression was used to estimate relative preference weights for each attribute level. Benefit equivalent measures (additional months of PFS in exchange for toxicities) were also calculated.Results:Of the 272 patients who completed the survey, the majority were female (53), white (92), and had at least a college degree (66). The mean age was 57 years (standard deviation: 10 years). Over the range of attributes and attribute levels included in the survey, PFS was the most important attribute, followed by fatigue, stomach problems, hepatic impairment, mucositis or stomatitis, HFS, pneumonitis, and mode of administration. To reduce severe fatigue to mild-to-moderate fatigue, patients on average would be willing to forego 4.4 months of PFS. To reduce hepatic impairment risk from 0.5 to 0.0, patients on average would be willing to forego 1.0 month of PFS. The main study limitation was that patients answered hypothetical treatment-choice questions.Conclusions:This study provides information to physicians about patient priorities when reviewing and selecting RCC therapies with patients.

AbstractObjectives:The purpose was to quantify patient and parent preferences for administration attributes of immunoglobulin (IG) treatments; and determine which administration attributes were most important to users of IG treatment and whether patients and parents have similar preferences for administration attributes.Methods:US adult patients and parents of children with a self-reported physician diagnosis of a primary immunodeficiency disorder completed a best-practice web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey that presented a series of 12 choice questions, each including a pair of hypothetical IG-treatment profiles. After reviewing current therapies, each profile was defined by mode of administration, frequency, location, number of needle sticks, and treatment duration. Before answering the choice questions, respondents were told to assume all treatments worked equally well. Choice questions were based on a D-efficient experimental design. Preference weights for attribute levels were estimated using random-parameters logit for each sample (adult patients and parents). Tests were performed to determine potential interactions among the administration attributes. All respondents provided online informed consent.Results:In total, 252 patients and 66 parents completed the choice questions appropriately. Overall, both groups preferred a home setting, monthly frequency, fewer needle sticks, and shorter treatment durations of IG treatment relative to alternative choices (p < 0.05). Mode of administration was the least important attribute to both samples; however, parents strongly preferred self-administration to an appointment with a healthcare professional (p < 0.05), whereas patients slightly preferred self-administration but were indifferent to the two modes.Limitations:Respondents evaluate hypothetical treatments and differences can arise between stated and actual choices.Conclusions:Considering the hypothetical treatments evaluated, IG treatments that provide the option of a home setting, monthly frequency, fewer needle sticks, and shorter treatment durations may address the needs of both patients and parents. Patients and parents have different preferences for administration attributes of IG treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the relative importance that UK physicians attach to the benefits and risks of current drugs when making treatment decisions for patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Physicians treating at least 10 patients with OA per month completed an online discrete-choice experiment survey and answered 12 treatment-choice questions comparing medication profiles. Medication profiles were defined by 4 benefits (reduction in ambulatory pain, resting pain, stiffness, and difficulty doing daily activities) and 3 treatment-related risks [bleeding ulcer, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI)]. Each physician made medication choices for 3 of 9 hypothetical patients (varied by age, history of MI, hypertension, and history of gastrointestinal bleeding). Importance weights were estimated using a random-parameters logit model. Treatment-related risks physicians were willing to accept in exchange for various reductions in ambulatory and resting pain also were calculated. RESULTS: The final sample was 475. A reduction in ambulatory pain from 75 mm to 25 mm (1.6 units) was 1.1 times as important as an increase in MI risk from 0% to 1.5% (1.5 units). The greatest importance was for eliminating a 3% treatment-related risk of MI or stroke. On average, physicians were willing to accept an increase in bleeding ulcer risk of 0.7% (95% CI 0.4%–1.7%) for a reduction in ambulatory pain of 75 mm to 50 mm. CONCLUSION: When presented with well-known benefits and risks of OA treatments, physicians placed greater importance on the risks than on the analgesic properties of the drug. This has implications for the reporting of the results of clinical research to physicians.