Search

Summary: Background: The benefit of Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) in weight reduction against potential harms remains unclear. This study aimed at evaluating the benefit-harm balance of initiating GLP-1 RAs versus placebo for weight loss in people living with overweight and obesity but without diabetes. Methods: We performed benefit-harm balance modelling, which will be updated as new evidence emerges. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, controlled trials registry, drug approval and regulatory documents, and outcome preference weights as of April 10, 2024. We synthesize data using pairwise meta-analysis to estimate the effect of GLP-1 RAs to inform the benefit-harm balance modelling. We predicted the absolute effects of the positive and negative outcomes over 1 and 2 years of treatment using exponential models. We applied preference weights to the outcomes, ranging from 0 for least concerning to 1.0 for most concerning. We then calculated whether the benefit of achieving 5% and 10% weight loss outweighed the harms on a common scale. The analyses accounted for the statistical uncertainties of treatment effects, preference weights, and outcome risks. Findings: We included 8 RCTs involving 8847 participants. The pooled average age was 46.7 years, with the majority being women (74%) and people living with obesity (96%). Of 1000 persons treated with GLP-1 RAs for 2 years, 375 (95% confidence interval 352 to 399) achieved a 10% weight loss, and 318 (296 to 339) achieved a 5% weight loss compared to those treated with placebo. Several harm outcomes were more frequent in the GLP-1 RA group, including 41 abdominal pain events per 1000 persons over 2 years (19 to 69), cholelithiasis (8, 1 to 21), constipation (118, 78 to 164), diarrhoea (100, 42 to 173), alopecia (57, 10 to 176), hypoglycaemia (17, 1 to 68), injection site reactions (4, −3 to 19), and vomiting (110, 80 to 145) among others. Achieving a 10% weight loss with GLP-1 RA therapy outweighed the cumulative harms, with a net benefit probability of 0.97 at year 1 and 0.91 at year 2. The absolute net benefit was equivalent to 104 (100 to 112) per 1000 persons achieving a 10% weight loss over 2 years without experiencing any worrisome harm. A 5% weight loss did not show a net benefit, with probabilities of 0.13 and 0.01 at year 1 and year 2, respectively. However, these benefits were sensitive to preference weights, suggesting that even a 5% weight loss could be net beneficial for individuals with less concern about harm outcomes. The net benefit for a 10% weight loss was highest for semaglutide, followed by liraglutide and tirzepatide, with 2-year probabilities of 0.96, 0.72, and 0.60, respectively. Interpretation: The benefit of GLP-1 RAs exceeded the harms for weight loss in the first 2 years of treatment, yet the net benefit was dependent on individual’ treatment goals (10% or 5% weight loss) and willingness to accept harms in pursuit of weight loss. This implies that treatment decisions have to be personalized to individuals to optimize benefits and reduce harms and overuse of treatments. Due to varying evidence, especially regarding harm outcomes across studies, it is necessary to continuously update and monitor the benefit-harm balance of GLP-1 RAs. Funding: SNSF and LOOP Zurich.

Background: Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Objective: To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. Results and limitations: Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p

Dominik Menges,1 Michela C Piatti,1 Thomas Cerny,2,3 Milo A Puhan1 1Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Zurich, Switzerland; 2Foundation Board, Cancer Research Switzerland (Krebsforschung Schweiz KFS), Bern, Switzerland; 3Human Medicines Expert Committee (HMEC), Swissmedic, Bern, SwitzerlandCorrespondence: Dominik Menges, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zurich (UZH), Hirschengraben 84, Zurich, CH-8001, Switzerland, Tel +41 44 634 46 15, Email dominik.menges@uzh.chBackground: Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.Results: Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.Conclusion: The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.Keywords: patient preferences, medical product life cycle, preference research, benefit-harm assessment, patient-centered care, prostate cancer, systematic review

Stated preference studies in which information on the willingness to trade‐off between the benefits and harms of medicines is elicited from patients or other stakeholders are becoming increasingly mainstream. Such trade‐offs can mathematically be represented by a weighted additive function, with the weights, whose ratios determine how much an individual is willing to trade‐off between the treatment attributes, being the response vector for the statistical analysis. One way of eliciting trade‐off information is through multi‐dimensional thresholding (MDT), which is a bisection‐based approach that results in increasingly tight bounds on the values of the weights ratios. While MDT is cognitively less demanding than other, more direct elicitation methods, its use complicates the statistical analysis as it results in weights data that are region censored. In this article, we present a simulated maximum likelihood (SML) procedure for fitting a Dirichlet population model directly to the region‐censored weights data and perform a series of computational experiments to compare the proposed SML procedure to a naive approach in which a Dirichlet distribution is fitted to the centroids of the weights boundaries obtained with MDT. The results indicate that the SML procedure consistently outperformed the centroid‐based approach, with the centroid‐based approach requiring three bisection steps per trade‐off to achieve a similar precision as the SML procedure with one bisection step per trade‐off. Using the newly proposed SML procedure, MDT can be applied with smaller sample sizes or with fewer questions compared to the more naïve centroid‐based approach that was applied in previous applications of MDT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care.Methods: We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification). We refined strategies to select the most applicable, valid, and precise evidence.Results: Two processes were important when assessing the balance of benefits and harms of interventions: (1) engaging stakeholders and (2) stratification by patient preferences and characteristics. Engaging patients and caregivers through focus groups, preference surveys, and as co-investigators provided value in prioritizing research questions, identifying relevant clinical outcomes, and clarifying the relative importance of these outcomes. Our strategies to select evidence for stratified benefit-harm assessments considered consistency across outcomes and subgroups. By quantitatively estimating the range in the benefit-harm balance resulting from true variation in preferences, we clarified whether the benefit-harm balance is preference sensitive.Conclusions: Our approaches for engaging patients and caregivers at all phases of the stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments were feasible and revealed how sensitive the benefit-harm balance is to patient characteristics and individual preferences. Accordingly, this sensitivity can suggest to guideline developers when to tailor recommendations for specific patient subgroups or when to explicitly leave decision making to individual patients and their providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online behavioral advertising (OBA) provides Internet users with potential benefit (relevant ads) and harm (privacy infringement) through personalized covert persuasion tactics, making it an interesting case for understanding perceptions of media effects. In study 1 (survey), we found that subjective persuasion knowledge of OBA was positively related to third-person perception (TPP). Importantly, the assessment of the potential harm and benefit of OBA mediated the relationship between subjective persuasion knowledge and TPP. Objective persuasion knowledge however was only indirectly related to TPP via subjective persuasion knowledge. TPP related to personal (accept, avoid OBA) but not social-level (pro-regulation) coping measures. Study 2 (experiment) replicated study 1 and showed that the perceived effect of OBA on self (not others) drove the TPP and the responses to personal outcome measures. Implications for understanding perceived media effects and response to OBA are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Synthesizing evidence from comparative effectiveness trials can be difficult because multiple outcomes of different importance are to be considered. The goal of this study was to demonstrate an approach to conducting quantitative benefit-harm assessment that considers patient preferences. Methods We conducted a benefit-harm assessment using data from the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial that compared corticosteroid implant versus systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppression in non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. We focused on clinical outcomes considered important to patients, including visual acuity, development of cataracts/glaucoma, need for eye surgery, prescription-requiring hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and infections. Patient preferences elicited in a recent survey were then incorporated into our assessment of the benefit-harm balance. Results Benefit-harm metrics were calculated for each time point that summarized the numbers of outcomes, caused or prevented by implant therapy versus systemic therapy if 1000 patients were treated. The benefit-harm metric was 129 (95% confidence interval: -242 to -14), -317 (-436 to -196), -390 (-514 to -264), and -526 (-687 to -368) at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months follow up, respectively, suggesting that systemic therapy may have a better benefit-harm balance. However, measures of quality of life for patients treated with implant therapy were found to be better than patients treated with systemic therapy over the same time period. Conclusions Results of benefit-harm assessment were different from the prospectively collected quality of life data during trial follow up. Future studies should explore the reasons for such discrepancies and the strength and weakness of each method to assess treatment benefits and harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When faced with uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions regulatory agencies, guideline developers, clinicians, and researchers commonly ask for more research, and in particular for more randomized trials. The conduct of additional randomized trials is, however, sometimes not the most efficient way to reduce uncertainty. Instead, approaches such as value of information analysis or other approaches should be used to prioritize research that will most likely reduce uncertainty and inform decisions. Discussion: In situations where additional research for specific interventions needs to be prioritized, we propose the use of quantitative benefit-harm assessments that illustrate how the benefit-harm balance may change as a consequence of additional research. The example of roflumilast for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease shows that additional research on patient preferences (e.g., how important are exacerbations relative to psychiatric harms?) or outcome risks (e.g., what is the incidence of psychiatric outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without treatment?) is sometimes more valuable than additional randomized trials. Summary: We propose that quantitative benefit-harm assessments have the potential to explore the impact of additional research and to identify research priorities Our approach may be seen as another type of value of information analysis and as a useful approach to stimulate specific new research that has the potential to change current estimates of the benefit-harm balance and decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Multiple treatments for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) are available, but their effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and benefit-harm balance remain unclear., Objective: To assess clinical effectiveness regarding survival and HRQoL, safety, and benefit-harm balance of mHSPC treatments., Evidence Acquisition: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, and radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) mutually or with ADT alone were eligible. Three reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate., Evidence Synthesis: Across ten RCTs, we found relevant survival benefits for ADT + docetaxel (high certainty according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), ADT + abiraterone (moderate certainty), ADT + enzalutamide (low certainty), ADT + apalutamide (high certainty), and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide (high certainty) compared with ADT alone. ADT + radiotherapy appeared effective only in low-volume de novo mHSPC. We found a short-term HRQoL decrease lasting 3-6 mo for ADT + docetaxel (moderate certainty) and a potential HRQoL benefit for ADT + abiraterone up to 24 mo of follow-up (moderate certainty) compared with ADT alone. There was no difference in HRQoL for ADT + enzalutamide, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + radiotherapy over ADT alone (low-high certainty). Grade 3-5 adverse effect rates were increased with all systemic combination treatments. A benefit-harm assessment showed high probabilities (>60%) for a net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + enzalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide, while ADT + docetaxel and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide appeared unlikely (<40%) to be beneficial., Conclusions: Despite substantial survival benefits, no systemic combination treatment showed a clear HRQoL improvement compared with ADT alone. We found evidence for a short-term HRQoL decline with ADT + docetaxel and a higher net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + apalutamide and ADT + enzalutamide. While individualized decision-making remains important and economic factors need to be considered, the evidence may support a general preference for the combination of ADT with androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies over docetaxel-containing strategies., Patient Summary: We assessed different combination treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. While survival was better with all systemic combination treatments, there was no clear improvement in health-related quality of life compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone. Novel hormonal combination treatments had a more favorable benefit-harm balance than combination treatments that include chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fingolimod is a disease-modifying drug approved for multiple sclerosis but its benefit-harm balance has never been assessed compared to other active treatments., Objectives: Our aim was to compare the benefits and harms of fingolimod with interferon beta-1a using individual patient data from TRial Assessing injectable interferon versus FTY720 Oral in RRMS trial., Methods: We modelled the health status of patients over time including Expanded Disability Status Scale measurements, relapses and any adverse events. We assessed the mean health status between arms and the proportion of patients whose health deteriorated or improved relatively to baseline, using a prespecified minimal important difference of 4.6. We performed sensitivity analyses to test our assumptions., Results: Main and sensitivity analyses favoured fingolimod 0.5 mg over interferon beta-1a. The average health status difference was 1.01 (95% CI 0.93-1.08). Patients on fingolimod 0.5 mg were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.35-0.63, p  < 0.001) times less likely to experience a relevant decline in health status compared to interferon beta-1a patients, with a number needed to treat of 7.10 [5.18, 11.23]., Conclusions: Fingolimod's net benefit over interferon beta-1a did not reach the clinical relevance over 1 year, but the decreased risk for health status deterioration may be more pronounced more long term and patients may prefer less treatment burden associated with fingolimod., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Jürg Kesselring was a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of Fingolimod studies from 2005 to 2017., (© The Author(s), 2022.)

Objectives: To describe challenges and make recommendations for researchers in how they select evidence to quantitatively assess a prescription drug's benefits and harms., Study Design and Setting: These challenges and recommendations are based on our recent experience conducting a benefit-harm assessment for the prescription drug roflumilast. We considered the selection of evidence to quantify (1) the drug's treatment effects in patients, (2) the patient population's baseline risks for beneficial and harmful outcomes without treatment, and (3) the patient population's preferences for these beneficial effects and harms. These are fundamental steps for most benefit-harm assessment methods., Results: We identify critical issues in selecting evidence for each of these steps. We justify in particular the need to incorporate (1) clinical trials for the drug's specific treatment effect; (2) observational studies with the most valid, precise, and applicable effect estimates for the baseline risk; and (3) flexible weighting approaches for balancing the drug benefits and harms., Conclusion: We identify challenges and make recommendations for selecting evidence at the critical steps in a prescription drug's benefit-harm assessment. Our findings should assist other researchers conducting these assessments for prescription drugs, which could help regulators, medical professionals, and patients make better decisions about prescription drug use., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)