Search

Abstract Aims Decision‐makers still predominantly focus on the perspective of non‐patient stakeholders, which may deviate from the unique perspective of heart failure (HF) patients. To enhance patient‐centred decision‐making, there is a need for more patient‐based evidence derived directly from the patients themselves. Hence, this study aimed to understand (i) HF patients' unmet medical needs and preferred treatment outcomes; (ii) patients' risk tolerance; and (iii) their information needs, uncertainties and satisfaction towards HF treatment. Methods This qualitative patient preference study consisted of a literature review with a systematic search strategy and semi‐structured interviews with HF patients, analysed using the framework method. During the interviews, patients were asked to rank a predefined list of disease and treatment‐related characteristics informed by the literature review and were able to spontaneously raise additional characteristics. Results The study included 14 Belgian HF patients (age range: 58–79, mean age: 72). (i) Regarding their unmet medical needs, HF patients reported that the most important unmet medical needs were shortness of breath and fatigue, as they negatively impact their quality of life (QoL) and independence. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritized improvements in QoL over improvements in life expectancy, whereby the following characteristics received the highest cumulative score: (1) independence, (2) shortness of breath, (3) impaired renal function, (4) survival, (5) fatigue, (6) risk of hospitalization and (7) communication with and between physicians. Patients most often spontaneously raise characteristics related to the general care process. Mechanism of action, route of administration, dose frequency and weight fluctuations scored among the least important characteristics. (ii) Regarding patients' risk tolerance towards HF treatment, some of the patients expressed zero tolerance for side effects, as they had not yet experienced any discomfort caused by the treatment or disease. (iii) Regarding their information needs, patients voiced their desire to receive practical and comprehensible advice orally from their physician because they highly value individualized treatment decision‐making. Patients also expressed uncertainties regarding whether the experienced effects were due to their treatment, disease, ageing or other comorbidities. Conclusions This study shows that, besides increasing life expectancy, HF patients prioritize improvements in symptoms and side effects reducing their QoL and independence, such as shortness of breath and fatigue. The patient‐relevant characteristics identified in this study, from the perspective of HF patients themselves, may be useful to inform clinical trial endpoint selection and guide downstream drug development, evaluation and clinical decision‐making towards addressing the unmet medical needs and treatment outcomes of importance to HF patients.

Aims: Decision‐makers still predominantly focus on the perspective of non‐patient stakeholders, which may deviate from the unique perspective of heart failure (HF) patients. To enhance patient‐centred decision‐making, there is a need for more patient‐based evidence derived directly from the patients themselves. Hence, this study aimed to understand (i) HF patients' unmet medical needs and preferred treatment outcomes; (ii) patients' risk tolerance; and (iii) their information needs, uncertainties and satisfaction towards HF treatment. Methods: This qualitative patient preference study consisted of a literature review with a systematic search strategy and semi‐structured interviews with HF patients, analysed using the framework method. During the interviews, patients were asked to rank a predefined list of disease and treatment‐related characteristics informed by the literature review and were able to spontaneously raise additional characteristics. Results: The study included 14 Belgian HF patients (age range: 58–79, mean age: 72). (i) Regarding their unmet medical needs, HF patients reported that the most important unmet medical needs were shortness of breath and fatigue, as they negatively impact their quality of life (QoL) and independence. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritized improvements in QoL over improvements in life expectancy, whereby the following characteristics received the highest cumulative score: (1) independence, (2) shortness of breath, (3) impaired renal function, (4) survival, (5) fatigue, (6) risk of hospitalization and (7) communication with and between physicians. Patients most often spontaneously raise characteristics related to the general care process. Mechanism of action, route of administration, dose frequency and weight fluctuations scored among the least important characteristics. (ii) Regarding patients' risk tolerance towards HF treatment, some of the patients expressed zero tolerance for side effects, as they had not yet experienced any discomfort caused by the treatment or disease. (iii) Regarding their information needs, patients voiced their desire to receive practical and comprehensible advice orally from their physician because they highly value individualized treatment decision‐making. Patients also expressed uncertainties regarding whether the experienced effects were due to their treatment, disease, ageing or other comorbidities. Conclusions: This study shows that, besides increasing life expectancy, HF patients prioritize improvements in symptoms and side effects reducing their QoL and independence, such as shortness of breath and fatigue. The patient‐relevant characteristics identified in this study, from the perspective of HF patients themselves, may be useful to inform clinical trial endpoint selection and guide downstream drug development, evaluation and clinical decision‐making towards addressing the unmet medical needs and treatment outcomes of importance to HF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The study aimed at investigating prostate cancer patients' choice of androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) and possible factors that would affect their preferences of ADT. Methods: This was a single-centre cross-sectional study investigating the usage and preferences of ADT. Consecutives prostate cancer patients who were receiving injectable luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist or antagonist were recruited from the prostate cancer clinic in a tertiary academic hospital. Patients who received bilateral orchidectomy or those who could not consent to the study were excluded. Disease characteristics, treatment information and patient background were documented. The survey collected information related to their change in ADT regimen, preferences on drug usage (routes and frequency of administration) and their reasons. A hypothetical set of three drug formularies was designed. Questions regarding patient preference and the contributing reasons raised in the format of questionnaire. Results: 100 patients completed the survey. Most patients started with more frequent injections (3-monthly, 54%; 1-monthly, 38%) and switched to 6-monthly injections (89%) at the time of the survey. Primary reasons for the change were healthcare opinion (72%) and less frequent treatment (51%). Three options of ADT (oral daily, 1-monthly and 6-monthly injection) with the same efficacies and side effect profile were offered: 61% preferred 6-monthly injection, 1% preferred 1-monthly injection and 38% preferred oral regimen. When patients were informed of lower cardiovascular side effects in 1-monthly injection or daily oral drug, patients' preference was 56% (6-monthly), 6% (1-monthly), and 39% (oral). Patients with polypharmacy (more than 5 regular medications) were more inclined to choose injections (p = 0.025). Patient age, educational background, employment status, marriage status and disease status were not found to be statistically significant contributing factors to patient preference. Conclusion: 6-monthly ADT injection was the preferred ADT despite greater cardiovascular risks. Among 1-monthly or daily oral LHRH antagonist, more patients prefer oral option. Convenience factor was highly valued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene therapy is a potential treatment for Friedreich ataxia, with multiple programs on the horizon. The purpose of this study was to collect opinions about gene therapy from individuals 14 years or older with Friedreich ataxia or parents/caregivers of Friedreich ataxia patients who were diagnosed as children 17 or younger. Participants were asked to complete a survey after reading brief educational materials regarding gene therapy. Most of the patients captured in this survey have an early-onset (classical) presentation of the disease. Participants expressed urgency in participating in gene therapy clinical trials despite the associated risks. About half of the respondents believed that gene therapy would cease progression or minimize symptoms, whereas nearly one-fourth expected to be cured. The survey also revealed how participants perceive their symptom burden, because a substantial majority reported that balance/walking issues most interfere with their quality of life and would be the symptom they would prioritize treating. Although not statistically significant, more caregivers prioritized treating cardiomyopathy than patients. This study provides valuable information on priorities, beliefs, and expectations regarding gene therapy and serves to guide future gene therapy opinion studies and gene therapy trial design.

Plain English summary Research about patients’ preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as ‘research partners,’ that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners’ involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done.

Background: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient and public stakeholder involvement (PPI) in patient preference research. However, limited evidence exists regarding the impact, barriers and enablers of PPI in preference studies. The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)-PREFER project conducted a series of preference case studies which incorporated PPI. Objective: To describe: (1) how PPI was operationalized in the PREFER case studies, (2) the impact of PPI, and (3) factors that served to impede and facilitate PPI. Methods: We reviewed the PREFER final study reports to determine how patient partners were involved. We conducted a thematic framework analysis to characterize the impact of PPI and then administered a questionnaire to the PREFER study leads to identify barriers and facilitators to effective PPI. Results: Eight PREFER case studies involved patients as research partners. Patient partners were involved in activities spanning all phases of the patient preference research process, including in study design, conduct and dissemination. However, the type and degree of patient partner involvement varied considerably. Positive impacts of PPI included improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) patient partner empowerment; (3) study transparency and dissemination of results; (4) research ethics, and (5) trust and respect between the research team and the patient community. Of the 13 barriers identified, the 3 most frequently reported were inadequate resources, insufficient time to fully involve patient partners, and uncertainty regarding how to operationalize the role of 'patient partner. Among the 12 facilitators identified, the two most frequently cited were (1) having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners; and (2) having multiple patient partners involved in the study. Conclusion: PPI had many positive impacts on the PREFER studies. Preference study leads with prior PPI experience reported a greater number of positive impacts than those with no such experience. In light of the numerous barriers identified, multi-faceted implementation strategies should be considered to support adoption, integration and sustainment of PPI within preference research. Additional case studies of patient partner involvement in preference research are needed as well to inform best practices in this area. Plain English summary: Research about patients' preferences for medicinal products and treatments is growing. Such research could be improved if patients were involved as 'research partners,' that is, as active members of the study team itself. To date, however, little is known about the actual experience of involving patients as partners in such research. This paper presents learnings from involving patients as partners in 8 case studies conducted as part of IMI-PREFER, a big, European-based project which aimed to develop recommendations about how to conduct preference research. Involving patients as partners led to improvements in the: (1) quality of the research and research process; (2) recruitment of participants; (3) content and design of patient-facing informational materials; and, (4) how and what study results were shared with patient communities. Our findings showed that it is important to plan for patient partners' involvement early on in the design of the preference study so as to ensure that they are fully integrated into the research team and their opportunity to contribute to all stages of the research is optimized. Such planning should address how patient partners will be paid, what their role responsibilities will include, how and when they will be trained and educated, and how they will be supported throughout the course of the study. Having a clearly stated purpose for involving patients as research partners, selecting patient partners who have had prior research experience and relationships with the researchers, and having multiple patient partners on the study team are all also helpful in supporting successful patient involvement. We need more people to share their experiences with involving patient partners in preference research so that we can continue to improve how this is done. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods, are most suitable for decision-making at different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to use an empirical approach to assess which attributes of PP assessment methods are most important, and to identify which methods are most suitable, for decision-makers' needs during different stages in the MPLC.Methods: A four-step cumulative approach was taken: 1) Identify important criteria to appraise methods through a Q-methodology exercise, 2) Determine numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance of each criterion through an analytical hierarchy process, 3) Assess the performance of 33 PP methods by applying these weights, consulting international health preference research experts and review of literature, and 4) Compare and rank the methods within taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques to identify the most promising methods.Results: The Q-methodology exercise was completed by 54 stakeholders with PP study experience, and the analytical hierarchy process was completed by 85 stakeholders with PP study experience. Additionally, 17 health preference research experts were consulted to assess the performance of the PP methods. Thirteen promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified as likely to meet decision-makers' needs. Additionally, eight other methods that decision-makers might consider were identified, although they appeared appropriate only for some stages of the MPLC.Conclusions: This transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods supports decision-makers and researchers in selecting PP methods most appropriate for a given application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene therapy is a potential treatment for Friedreich ataxia, with multiple programs on the horizon. The purpose of this study was to collect opinions about gene therapy from individuals 14 years or older with Friedreich ataxia or parents/caregivers of Friedreich ataxia patients who were diagnosed as children 17 or younger. Participants were asked to complete a survey after reading brief educational materials regarding gene therapy. Most of the patients captured in this survey have an early-onset (classical) presentation of the disease. Participants expressed urgency in participating in gene therapy clinical trials despite the associated risks. About half of the respondents believed that gene therapy would cease progression or minimize symptoms, whereas nearly one-fourth expected to be cured. The survey also revealed how participants perceive their symptom burden, because a substantial majority reported that balance/walking issues most interfere with their quality of life and would be the symptom they would prioritize treating. Although not statistically significant, more caregivers prioritized treating cardiomyopathy than patients. This study provides valuable information on priorities, beliefs, and expectations regarding gene therapy and serves to guide future gene therapy opinion studies and gene therapy trial design., Competing Interests: M.C. and B.J.B. are co-founders of AavantiBio, which supported the employee at ClinicalMind who provided graphical support for the educational material written by the study team. The survey was completed before the acquisition of AavantiBio by Solid Biosciences. None of the authors have any financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with Solid Biosciences. There was no commercial support for this study. The study was developed and conducted by the academic team at the University of Florida. Thus, the authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Patients, now generally well informed through dedicated websites and support organizations, are beginning to look askance at clinical experimentation. We conducted a survey investigation to verify whether women with endometriosis would still accept to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on treatment for pelvic pain.Methods: A total of 500 patients consecutively self-referring to an academic outpatient endometriosis clinic, were asked to compile two questionnaires focused on hypothetical comparisons between a new drug and a standard drug, and between medical and surgical treatment, for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients willing to participate in a theoretical RCT.Results: A total of 239 (48 %) women would decline participation in a comparative study on a new drug and a standard drug, as 204 (41 %) would prefer the former medication, and 35 (7 %) the latter. Fifty women (10 %) would participate in a RCT, but only 24 (5 %) would accept blinding. The most frequently chosen option was the patient preference trial (211; 42 %). No significant differences were observed in demographic and clinical characteristics between the 50 women who would accept and the 450 who would decline to be enrolled in a RCT. A total of 229 women (46 %) would decline participation in a comparative study on medical versus surgical treatment, as 186 (37 %) would prefer pharmacological therapy and 43 (9 %) a surgical procedure. Only 11 (2 %) women would participate in such a RCT. More than half of the women (260; 52 %) selected the patient preference trial. No significant variations in distributions of answers were observed between women who did or did not undergo a previous surgical procedure.Conclusion: Only a small minority of the women included in our study sample would accept randomization, and even less so blinding. Patient preference appears to play a central role when planning interventional trials on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Adequately designed observational analytic studies could be considered when recruitment in a RCT appears cumbersome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]