Search

John FP Bridges,1,* Joseph F Goldberg,2,* Heather M Fitzgerald,3,* Sanjeda R Chumki,4,* Kathleen Beusterien,5,* Oliver Will,5,* Leslie Citrome6,* 1Department of Biomedical Informatics, the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 2Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 3Medical Affairs, Lundbeck LLC, Deerfield, IL, USA; 4Medical Affairs, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization Inc, Princeton, NJ, USA; 5Cerner Enviza, North Kansas City, MO, USA; 6Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Sanjeda R Chumki, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization Inc, 508 Carnegie Center Dr, Princeton, NJ, 08540, USA, Tel +1-609-524-6788, Email Sanjeda.Chumki@otsuka-us.comPurpose: Bipolar I disorder (BP-I) is associated with significant disease burden, but evidence on treatment goals in people diagnosed with BP-I is scarce. This study sought to quantify treatment goals related to the pharmacological management of BP-I in adults in the US and to identify if subgroups of people with similar treatment goals exist.Patients and Methods: A best–worst scaling (BWS) of treatment goals was developed based on available literature and input from experts and patients and was distributed as part of a survey between August and September 2021. Survey participants were adults with a self-reported diagnosis of BP-I who were recruited via an online panel in the US. Participants were asked to prioritize the importance of 16 treatment goals using BWS. BWS scores were computed using multinomial logistic regression, with the scores across all goals summing to 100 for each participant. Subgroups of people with similar preferences were identified using latent class analysis.Results: The most important treatment goals for people diagnosed with BP-I (N=255) were “being less impulsive, angry, or irritable” (score: 9.73), or being “able to feel pleasure or happiness” (score: 9.54). Goals related to reducing the incidence of various potential adverse events of medication (scores: ≤ 4.51) or “reducing dependence on others” (score: 3.04) were less important. Two subgroups were identified. One subgroup (n=111) prioritized symptom-focused goals, considering “reducing frequency of mania, depression, and mixed episodes” and “being less impulsive, angry or irritable” the most important (scores: 12.46 and 11.85, respectively). The other subgroup (n=144) placed significantly more importance on social functioning-focused goals, including beginning or maintaining a relationship with a partner/significant other, and with family and/or friends (scores: 8.45 and 7.70, respectively).Conclusion: People diagnosed with BP-I prioritized emotional improvements. Subgroups of people with BP-I prioritized either symptom-focused or social functioning-focused treatment goals.Keywords: patient preference, healthcare questionnaire, treatment individualization, social functioning

Ellen M Janssen,1 Sydney M Dy,2 Alexa S Meara,3 Peter J Kneuertz,4 Carolyn J Presley,5 John FP Bridges6,7 1Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD, USA; 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; 3Department of Internal Medicine Division Of Rheumatology, The Ohio State University, College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Thoracic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 5Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 6Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 7Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USACorrespondence: Ellen M JanssenResearch Director, Center for Medical Technology Policy, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 631, Baltimore, MD 21202, USATel +1 443-222-8775Email ellen.janssen@cmtpnet.orgObjective: Increased treatment options and longer survival for lung cancer have generated increased interest in patient preferences. Previous studies of patient preferences in lung cancer have not fully explored preference heterogeneity. We demonstrate a method to explore preference heterogeneity in the willingness of patients with lung cancer and caregivers to trade progression-free survival (PFS) with side effects.Patients and Methods: Patients and caregivers attending a national lung cancer meeting completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) designed through a collaboration with patients. Participants answered 13 choice tasks described across PFS, short-term side effects, and four long-term side effects. Side effects were coded as a one-level change in severity (none-mild, mild-moderate, or moderate-severe). A mixed logit model in willingness-to-pay space estimated preference heterogeneity in acceptable tradeoffs (time equivalents) between PFS and side effects. The study was reported following quality indicators from the United States Food and Drug Administration’s patient preference guidance.Results: A total of 87 patients and 24 caregivers participated in the DCE. Participants would trade 3.7 month PFS (95% CI (CI): 3.3– 4.1) for less severe functional long-term treatment side effects, 2.3 months for less severe physical long-term effects (CI: 1.9– 2.8) and cognitive long-term effects (CI: 1.8– 2.8), 0.9 months (CI: 0.4– 1.4) for less severe emotional long-term effects, and 1.8 months (CI: 1.4– 2.3) for less severe short-term side effects. Most participants (90%) would accept treatment with more severe functional long-term effects for 8.4 additional month PFS.Conclusion: Participants would trade PFS for changes in short-term side effects and long-term side effects, although preference heterogeneity existed. Lung cancer treatments that offer less PFS but also less severe side effects might be acceptable to some patients.Keywords: non-small cell lung cancer, patient preferences, discrete choice experiment, heterogeneity, long-term side effects

Ilene L Hollin,1 Anne EF Dimmock,2 John FP Bridges,3 Sonye K Danoff,4 Rebecca Bascom21Department of Health Services Administration and Policy, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Penn State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA; 3Departments of Biomedical Informatics and Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Division of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USAPurpose: Rare diseases present challenges for accessing patient populations to conduct surveys. Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs) offer an opportunity to overcome those challenges by providing infrastructure for accessing patients and sharing data. This study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of collecting patient preference information for a rare disease in a CDRN, using idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis as proof of concept.Patients and methods: Utilizing a cohort of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients across a CDRN, a discrete choice experiment was administered via electronic and paper methods to collect patient preference information about benefits and risks of two therapeutic options. Survey data were augmented with data from electronic health records and patient-reported outcome surveys.Results: Thirty-three patients completed the preference experiment. The amount of choice attributable to a benefit of slowing of decline in lung function was 36%. Improving efficacy in terms of lung function was 2.16 times as important as improving efficacy in terms of shortness of breath. In terms of side effects, decreasing risk of gastrointestinal problems was 2.6 times as important as decreasing risk of sun sensitivity and 2.4 times as important as decreasing risk of liver injury. In terms of benefit-risk trade-offs, improving efficacy in terms of lung function was 1.6 times as important as decreasing risk of gastrointestinal problems.Conclusion: This study used IPF as a proof of concept to demonstrate the feasibility of collecting patient preference information in a CDRN. The network was advantageous to the study of patient preferences. Future research should continue to explore pathways for the collection and use of patient preference information across networks. The power of consolidated collection efforts may lead to the ability to use preference data to inform decision-making at the regional, specialty, or individual encounter level.Keywords: stated preference methods, discrete choice experiment, patient-centered outcomes research, benefit-risk trade-off

Tetsuhiro Chiba,1 Atsushi Hiraoka,2 Shigeru Mikami,3 Masami Shinozaki,4 Yukio Osaki,5 Masamichi Obu,6 Takamasa Ohki,7 Naoyuki Mita,8 Dianne Ledesma,8 Nariaki Yoshihara,8 Kathleen Beusterien,9 Kaitlan Amos,9 John FP Bridges,10 Osamu Yokosuka111Department of Gastroenterology and Nephrology, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan; 2Gastroenterology Center, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Matsuyama, Ehime Prefecture, Japan; 3Department of Internal Medicine, Kikkoman General Hospital, Noda-shi, Chiba Prefecture, Japan; 4Department of Gastroenterology, Numazu City Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan; 5Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Osaka Red Cross Hospital, Osaka, Japan; 6Department of Gastroenterology, Kimitsu Chuo Hospital, Kisarazu City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan; 7Department of Gastroenterology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; 8Market Access, Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; 9ORS Health, Washington DC, USA; 10Department of Biomedical Informatics and Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 11Japan Community Health care Organization Funabashi Central Hospital, Funabashi, Chiba Prefecture, JapanPurpose: This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy.Methods: Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best–worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR).Results: The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred “oral medication”, “artery branches plugged”, and “prevents formation of new blood vessels”, and least preferred “risk of liver damage” and “risk of catheter-related complications”. Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively (p

Jui-Hua Tsai, Ellen Janssen, John FP Bridges Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA Abstract: Patient groups are increasingly engaging in research to understand patients’ preferences and incorporate their perspectives into drug development and regulation. Several models of patient engagement have emerged, but there is little guidance on how to partner with patient groups to engage the disease community. Our group has been using an approach to engage patient groups that we call research as an event. Research as an event is a method for researchers to use a community-centered event to engage patients in their own environment at modest incremental cost. It is a pragmatic solution to address the challenges of engaging patients in research to minimize patients’ frustration, decrease the time burden, and limit the overall cost. The community, the event, and the research are the three components that constitute the research as an event framework. The community represents a disease-specific community. The event is a meeting of common interest for patients and other stakeholders, such as a patient advocacy conference. The research describes activities in engaging the community for the purpose of research. Research as an event follows a six-step approach. A case study is used to demonstrate the six steps followed by recommendations for future implementation. Keywords: patients’ perspectives, decision making, drug approval, patient engagement, patient organization, patients’ preference

John FP Bridges,1 Allison H Oakes,1 Crystal A Reinhart,2 Ernest Voyard,3 Bernadette O’Donoghue3 1Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; 2Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA; 3The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, NY, USA Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rapidly progressing blood cancer for which new treatments are needed. We sought to promote patient-focused drug development (PFDD) for AML by developing and piloting an instrument to prioritize the worries of patients with AML.Patients and methods: An innovative community-centered approach was used to engage expert and community stakeholders in the development, pretesting, pilot testing, and dissemination of a novel best–worst scaling instrument. Patient worries were identified through individual interviews (n=15) and group calls. The instrument was developed through rigorous pretesting (n=13) and then piloted among patients and caregivers engaged in this study (n=25). Priorities were assessed using best–worst scores (spanning from +1 to -1) representing the relative number of times that items were endorsed as the most and the least worrying. All findings were presented at a PFDD meeting at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was attended by >80 stakeholders. Results: The final instrument included 13 worries spanning issues such as decision making, treatment delivery, physical impacts, and psychosocial effects. Patients and caregivers most prioritized worries about dying from their disease (best minus worst [BW] score=0.73), long-term side effects (BW=0.28), and time in hospital (BW=0.25).Conclusion: Community-centered approaches are valuable in designing and executing PFDD meetings and associated quantitative surveys to document the experience of patients. Expert and community stakeholders welcomed the opportunity to share their experiences with the FDA and strongly endorsed implementing this survey nationally. Keywords: acute myeloid leukemia, stated-preference, best–worst scaling, patient-focused drug development, community engagement

John FP Bridges,1,2 Norah L Crossnohere,2 Anne L Schuster,1 Judith A Miller,3 Carolyn Pastorini,3,† Rebecca A Aslakson2,4,5 1Department of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 2Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 3Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project, Baltimore, MD, 4Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 5Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA †Carolyn Pastorini passed away on August 24, 2015 Background: Despite a movement toward patient-centered outcomes, best practices on how to gather and refine patients’ perspectives on research endpoints are limited. Advanced care planning (ACP) is inherently patient centered and would benefit from patient prioritization of endpoints for ACP-related tools and studies.Objective: This investigation sought to prioritize patient-centered endpoints for the content and evaluation of an ACP video being developed for patients undergoing major surgery. We also sought to highlight an approach using complementary engagement and research strategies to document priorities and preferences of patients and other stakeholders.Materials and methods: Endpoints identified from a previously published environmental scan were operationalized following rating by a caregiver co-investigator, refinement by a patient co-investigator, review by a stakeholder committee, and validation by patients and family members. Finalized endpoints were taken to a state fair where members of the public who indicated that they or a loved one had undergone major surgery prioritized their most relevant endpoints and provided comments.Results: Of the initial 50 ACP endpoints identified from the review, 12 endpoints were selected for public prioritization. At the state fair, 359 individuals prioritized the endpoints, the highest ranking of which was having a meaningful conversation with a physician before surgery (57%).Conclusion: Using a novel combination of engagement and research techniques provided the opportunity to understand which endpoints were most important to patients and families and fostered framework development clarifying the differential contributions of engagement and research. Results from this study ultimately changed the content and evaluation of the ACP video. Keywords: patient preference, patient participation, community participation, research design

John FP Bridges,1 Kathleen Beusterien,2 Stephan Heres,3 Pedro Such,4 Joaquín Sánchez-Covisa,5 Anna-Greta Nylander,4 Elcie Chan,6 Anne de Jong-Laird5 1Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; 2Outcomes Research Strategies in Health, Washington DC, USA; 3Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; 4Global Medical Affairs, H. Lundbeck A/S, Valby, Denmark; 5Medical Department, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Europe Ltd., Wexham, UK; 6HEOR/Market Access, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Europe Ltd., Wexham, UK Objective: This study seeks to quantify the treatment goals of people recently diagnosed with schizophrenia and explore their impact on treatment plan.Methods: People aged 18–35 years with a confirmed diagnosis of schizophrenia within the past 5 years were surveyed in the UK, Germany, and Italy. Treatment goals were assessed via a validated best–worst scaling instrument, where participants evaluated subsets of 13 possible treatment goals identified using a balanced incomplete block design. Participants identified the most and least important goals within each task. Data were also collected on current treatment and preference for daily oral versus long-acting injectable (LAI) treatment. Hierarchical Bayes was used to identify preference weights for the goals, and latent class analysis was used to identify segments of people with similar goals. The segments were compared with the current treatment and preference for oral versus LAI treatment.Results: Across 100 participants, the average age was 26 years, 75% were male and 50% were diagnosed within 2 years ago. Overall, preferences were most favorable for reduced disease symptoms, think clearly, reduced hospitalizations, reduced anxiety, and take care of self. A total of 61% preferred oral medication and 39% LAI. Two groups were identified with different treatment goals; 50% of participants emphasized clinical goals, including reduced disease symptoms (preference weight =19.7%), reduced hospitalizations (15.5%), and reduced anxiety (10.5%). The other 50% emphasized functional goals, including improved relationships with family/friends (11.4%), increased interest in work (10.6%), experiencing a fuller range of emotions (8.4%), and ability to socialize (7.5%). Those emphasizing functional goals were more likely to be on LAI (44% versus 26%; p=0.059) and preferred LAI (46% versus 32%; p=0.151).Conclusions: People with recent-onset schizophrenia may focus more on clinical goals or functional goals, a discussion of which may help facilitate patient engagement. Keywords: recent-onset schizophrenia, preferences, treatment goals

Ellen M Janssen,1 Daniel R Longo,2 Joan K Bardsley,3 John FP Bridges1 1Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 2Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 3MedStar Health Research Institute and MedStar Nursing, Hyattsville, MD, USA Purpose: Diabetes is a chronic condition that is more prevalent among people with lower educational attainment. This study assessed the treatment preferences of patients with type 2 diabetes by educational attainment. Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from a national online panel in the US. Treatment preferences were assessed using a discrete-choice experiment. Participants completed 16 choice tasks in which they compared pairs of treatment profiles composed of six attributes: A1c decrease, stable blood glucose, low blood glucose, nausea, treatment burden, and out-of-pocket cost. Choice models and willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were estimated using a conditional logit model and were stratified by educational status. Results: A total of 231 participants with a high school diploma or less education, 156 participants with some college education, and 165 participants with a college degree or more completed the survey. Participants with a college degree or more education were willing to pay more for A1c decreases ($58.84, standard error [SE]: 10.6) than participants who had completed some college ($28.47, SE: 5.53) or high school or less ($17.56, SE: 3.55) (p≤0.01). People with a college education were willing to pay more than people with high school or less to avoid nausea, low blood glucose events during the day/night, or two pills per day. Conclusion: WTP for aspects of diabetes medication differed for people with a college education or more and a high school education or less. Advanced statistical methods might overcome limitations of stratification and advance understanding of preference heterogeneity for use in patient-centered benefit–risk assessments and personalized care approaches. Keywords: preference heterogeneity, stated-preference methods, preference heterogeneity, willingness-to-pay, choice experiment, educational attainment

Timothy N Showalter,1 Mark V Mishra,2 John FP Bridges31Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 2Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 3Department of Health Care Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USAPurpose: We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.Methods: We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.Results: Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences. Conclusion: This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members’ desires on patient decision-making.Keywords: prostate cancer, treatment, decision making, preferences, patient

Breakthroughs in genetic testing have informed patients and physicians in the treatment of breast cancer; however, they have also added to the complexity of decision-making. Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility not only changes treatment and screening options, but also challenges the way in which interventions are evaluated. While comparative effectiveness and cost-effective analysis methods are now standard for evaluation at the societal level, technologies such as genetic testing require us to consider the role of patient preference, especially as we move towards more personalized approaches to medicine. In this review, we discuss the changing role of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research by highlighting how the discipline could use patient preference methods, such as conjoint analysis, to promote shared decision-making and to empower breast cancer patients. By adopting these methods we could move our focus from what is best for payers or society to one that applies scientific methods to identify what is best for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stakeholder engagement in policy decision-making is critical to inform required trade-offs, especially in low-and-middle income settings, such as many African countries. Discrete-choice experiments are now commonly used to engage stakeholders in policy decisions, but other methods such as best-worst scaling (BWS), a theory-driven prioritization technique, could be equally important. We sought to document and explore applications of BWS to assess stakeholder priorities in the African context to bring attention to BWS as a method and to assess how and why it is being used to inform policy., Methods: We conducted a literature review of published applications of BWS for prioritization in Africa., Results: Our study identified 35 studies, with the majority published in the past four years. BWS has most commonly been used in agriculture (43%) and health (34%), although its broad applicability is demonstrated through use in fields influencing social and economic determinants of health, including business, environment, and transportation. Published studies from eastern, western, southern, and northern Africa include a broad range of sample sizes, design choices, and analytical approaches. Most studies are of high quality and high policy relevance. Several studies cited benefits of using BWS, with many of those citing potential limitations rather than observed limitations in their study., Conclusions: Growing use of the method across the African continent demonstrates its feasibility and utility, recommending it for consideration among researchers, program implementers, policy makers, and funders when conducting preference research to influence policy and improve health systems., Registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020209745)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are pancreatic premalignant lesions frequently detected incidentally. Choosing between surgery and surveillance for IPMNs is rooted in uncertainty. We characterized patient preferences in IPMN management, and examined associations with patients' uncertainty profiles (risk perception, risk attitude, and uncertainty tolerance)., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey drawn from a national opt-in panel. We simulated an encounter following an incidental computed tomography scan finding of an IPMN with a 5% cancer risk. We elicited participants' preferred treatment (surgery versus surveillance). Participant cancer risk perception, risk attitude (risk seeking versus risk averse), and uncertainty tolerance (comfort with the unknown) were determined using validated measures. Multivariate regression models assessed for independent predictors of treatment preference and risk perception., Results: The sample included 520 participants, ages 40-70, racially representative of the US population. Participants preferred surveillance (n = 331, 64%) over surgery (n = 189, 36%). Patients were significantly more likely to prefer surgery as their cancer risk perception increased (absolute difference = 12% from 1.0 standard deviation below to 1.0 standard deviation above the mean, 95% CI 3.5-20.2). Treatment preference was not significantly associated with risk attitude (P = 0.068) or uncertainty tolerance (P = 0.755). However, initial cancer risk perception was significantly associated with both uncertainty tolerance (P = 0.013) and baseline cancer anxiety (risk perception 16.4% versus 65%, not worried at all versus extremely worried, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Patient preference varies widely for IPMN and is significantly associated with cancer risk perception, which is, in turn, significantly associated with uncertainty tolerance and cancer anxiety. These findings argue for the preference-sensitive nature of IPMN treatment decisions., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV ME) is a tool that aims to improve HIV research, surveillance, and cluster detection and response. HIV ME is a core pillar of the U.S. initiative to End the HIV Epidemic but faces some challenges and criticisms from stakeholders. We sought to assess user experience to identify the current needs for HIV ME., Methods: Users of HIV ME, including researchers and public health practitioners, were engaged via a structured survey. Needs were assessed via open-ended questions about HIV ME. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis; the concordance of results was assessed semi-quantitatively., Results: Of 90 possible HIV-ME end-users, 57 completed the survey (response rate = 63%), which included users engaged in research ( n  = 29) and public health ( n  = 28). Respondents identified current imperatives, challenges, and strategies to improve HIV ME. Imperatives included characterization of the virus, identification of HIV hotspots, and tailoring of HIV interventions. Challenges encompassed technological issues, ethical concerns, and implementation difficulties. Strategies to improve HIV ME involved improving data access and analysis, enhancing implementation guidance and resources, and fostering community engagement and support. Researchers and public health practitioners prioritized different imperatives, but similarly emphasized the ethical concerns with HIV ME., Conclusion: The imperatives identified by users underscore the necessity of HIV ME, while the challenges highlight the hurdles to be overcome, including ethical concerns which emerged as a shared emphasis across user groups. The strategies outlined offer a roadmap for overcoming these challenges. These insights, drawn from user experience, present a valuable opportunity to inform the development of guidelines for the ethical application of HIV ME in research, surveillance, and cluster detection and response.

Importance: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) recognize days spent at home (home time) vs in a hospital or nursing facility as an important factor in treatment decision making. No study has adequately described home time among older adults with AML., Objective: To describe home time among older adults with AML (aged ≥66 years) and compare home time between 2 common treatments: anthracycline-based chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents (HMAs)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort of adults aged 66 years or older with a new diagnosis of AML from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database in 2004 to 2016 was identified. Individuals were stratified into anthracycline-based therapy, HMAs, or chemotherapy, not otherwise specified (NOS) using claims., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was home time, quantified by subtracting the total number of person-days spent in hospitals and nursing facilities from the number of person-days survived and dividing by total person-days. A weighted multinomial regression model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate adjusted home time was used., Results: The cohort included 7946 patients with AML: 2824 (35.5%) received anthracyclines, 2542 (32.0%) HMAs, and 2580 (32.5%) were classified as chemotherapy, NOS. Median (IQR) survival was 11.0 (5.0-27.0) months for those receiving anthracyclines and 8.0 (3.0-17.0) months for those receiving HMAs. Adjusted home time for all patients in the first year was 52.4%. Home time was highest among patients receiving HMAs (60.8%) followed by those receiving anthracyclines (51.9%). Despite having a shorter median survival, patients receiving HMAs had more total days at home and 33 more days at home in the first year on average than patients receiving anthracyclines (222 vs 189)., Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective study of older adults with AML using SEER-Medicare data and propensity score weighting suggests that the additional survival afforded by receiving anthracycline-based therapy was entirely offset by admission to the hospital or to nursing facilities.

Background: HIV molecular epidemiology (HIV ME) can support the early detection of emerging clusters of new HIV infections by combining HIV sequence data routinely obtained during the clinical treatment of people living with HIV with behavioral, geographic, and sociodemographic information. While information about emerging clusters promises to facilitate HIV prevention and treatment efforts, the use of this data also raises several ethical concerns. We sought to assess how those working on the frontlines of HIV ME, specifically public health practitioners (PHPs) and researchers, prioritized these issues., Methods: Ethical issues were identified through literature review, qualitative in-depth interviews, and stakeholder engagement. PHPs and researchers using HIV ME prioritized the issues using best-worst scaling (BWS). A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate 11 choice tasks each consisting of a sub-set of 5 ethical concerns. In each task, respondents were asked to assess the most and least concerning issue. Data were analyzed using conditional logit, with a Swait-Louviere test of poolability. Latent class analysis was then used to explore preference heterogeneity., Results: In total, 57 respondents completed the BWS experiment May-June 2023 with the Swait-Louviere test indicating that researchers and PHPs could be pooled (p = 0.512). Latent class analysis identified two classes, those highlighting "Harms" (n = 29) (prioritizing concerns about potential risk of legal prosecution, individual harm, and group stigma) and those highlighting "Utility" (n = 28) (prioritizing concerns about limited evidence, resource allocation, non-disclosure of data use for HIV ME, and the potential to infer the directionality of HIV transmission). There were no differences in the characteristics of members across classes., Conclusions: The ethical issues of HIV ME vary in importance among stakeholders, reflecting different perspectives on the potential impact and usefulness of the data. Knowing these differences exist can directly inform the focus of future deliberations about the policies and practices of HIV ME in the United States., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: We aimed to better understand patients' treatment preferences and quantify the level of cancer risk at which treatment preferences change (risk threshold) to inform better counseling of patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs)., Summary Background Data: The complexity of IPMN management provides an opportunity to align treatment with individual preference., Methods: We surveyed a sample of healthy volunteers simulating a common scenario: undergoing an imaging study that incidentally identifies an IPMN. In the scenario, the estimated risk of cancer in the IPMN was 5%. Patients were asked their treatment preference (surgery or surveillance), to quantify the level of cancer risk in the IPMN at which their treatment preference would change (i.e. risk threshold), and their level of cancer anxiety as measured on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined associations between participant characteristics, treatment preferences, and risk threshold using multivariable linear regression., Results: The median risk threshold among the 520 participants was 25% (IQR 2.3-50%). The risk threshold had a bimodal distribution: 40% of participants had a risk threshold between 0-10% and 47% had a risk threshold above 30%. When informed that the risk of cancer was 5%, 62% of participants (n=323) preferred surveillance, and the remaining 38% (n=197) preferred surgery. After adjusting for potential confounders, participants who expressed "worry" or "extreme worry" about the malignancy risk of IPMN had significantly lower risk thresholds than participants who were "not at all worried" (Coefficient -12, 95%CI -21 to -2, P=0.015 and Coefficient -18, 95%CI -29 to -8, P<0.001, respectively)., Conclusions: Participants varied in treatment preference and risk threshold of incidentally identified IPMNs. Given the uncertainty in estimating the true malignant potential of IPMNs, a better understanding of a patient's risk threshold, as influenced by patient concern about malignancy, will help inform the shared decision-making process., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the increasing availability of clinical trials in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, racial/ethnic minorities and other populations facing health disparities remain underrepresented in clinical trials evaluating products for Duchenne. We sought to understand the barriers faced by Hispanic/Latino families specifically and underrepresented groups more generally to clinical trial participation in Duchenne., Methods: We engaged two participant groups: Hispanic/Latino caregivers of children with Duchenne in the US, including Puerto Rico, and health professionals within the broader US Duchenne community. Caregiver interviews explored attitudes towards and experiences with clinical trials, while professional interviews explored barriers to clinical trial participation among socio-demographically underrepresented families (e.g., low income, rural, racial/ethnic minority, etc.). Interviews were analyzed aggregately and using a thematic analysis approach. An advisory group was engaged throughout the course of the study to inform design, conduct, and interpretation of findings generated from interviews., Results: Thirty interviews were conducted, including with 12 Hispanic/Latina caregivers and 18 professionals. We identified barriers to clinical trial participation at various stages of the enrollment process. In the initial identification of patients, barriers included lack of awareness about trials and clinical trial locations at clinics that were less likely to serve diverse patients. In the prescreening process, barriers included ineligibility, anticipated non-compliance in clinical trial protocols, and language discrimination. In screening, barriers included concerns about characteristics of the trial, as well as mistrust/lack of trust. In consent and recruitment, barriers included lack of timely decision support, logistical factors (distance, time, money), and lack of translated study materials., Conclusions: Numerous barriers hinder participation in Duchenne clinical trials for Hispanic/Latino families and other populations experiencing health disparities. Addressing these barriers necessitates interventions across multiple stages of the clinical trial enrollment process. Recommendations to enhance participation opportunities include developing clinical trial decision support tools, translating prominent clinical trials educational resources such as ClinicalTrials.gov, fostering trusting family-provider relationships, engaging families in clinical trial design, and establishing ethical guidelines for pre-screening potentially non-compliant patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Cabotegravir long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (LA-PrEP) was shown to be safe and effective in multiple clinical trials. Increasing uptake and persistence among populations with elevated risk for HIV acquisition, especially among men who have sex with men (MSM), is critical to HIV prevention., Objective: This analysis aims to understand potential users' preferences for LA-PrEP, with audience segmentation., Design: Willingness to use and preferences for LA-PrEP were measured in HIV-negative, sexually active MSM in the 2020 American Men's Internet Survey. Respondents answered a discrete choice experiment with paired profiles of hypothetical LA-PrEP characteristics with an opt-out option (no LA-PrEP). Conditional and mixed logit models were run; the final model was a dummy-coded mixed logit that interacted with the opt-out., Setting: US national online sample., Results: Among 2506 MSM respondents, most (75%) indicated a willingness to use LA-PrEP versus daily oral PrEP versus no PrEP. Respondents were averse to side effects and increasing costs and preferred increasing levels of protection. Respondents preferred a 2-hour time to obtain LA-PrEP vs 1 hour, with a strong aversion to 3 hours. Overall, there was an aversion to opting out of LA-PrEP, with variations: those with only one partner, no/other insurance or who were Black, Indigenous or People of Colour were significantly less likely to prefer LA-PrEP, while those who were Hispanic/Latino, college educated and <40 years significantly preferred LA-PrEP., Conclusions: A large proportion of MSM expressed a preference for LA-PrEP over daily oral pills. Most respondents chose LA-PrEP regardless of cost, clinic time, side effects or protection level; however, preferences varied by sociodemographics. These varied groups likely require tailored intervention strategies to achieve maximum LA-PrEP uptake and persistence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JG and Johns Hopkins University and THS and PSS and Emory University receive grant funding from ViiV Healthcare to conduct pre-exposure prophylaxis-related research. JFPB holds an Innovation in Regulatory Science Award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a rare neuromuscular disorder diagnosed in childhood. Limited newborn screening in the US often delays diagnosis. With multiple FDA-approved therapies, early diagnosis is crucial for timely treatment but may entail other benefits and harms. Using a community-based survey, we explored how parents of siblings with DMD perceived early diagnosis of one child due to a prior child's diagnosis. We assessed parents' viewpoints across domains including diagnostic journey, treatment initiatives, service access, preparedness, parenting, emotional impact, and caregiving experience. We analyzed closed-ended responses on a -1.0 to +1.0 scale to measure the degree of harm or benefit parents perceived and analyzed open-ended responses thematically. A total of 45 parents completed the survey, with an average age of 43.5 years and 20.0% identifying as non-white. Younger siblings were diagnosed 2 years earlier on average ( p < 0.001). Overall, parents viewed early diagnosis positively (mean: 0.39), particularly regarding school preparedness (+0.79), support services (+0.78), treatment evaluation (+0.68), and avoiding diagnostic odyssey (+0.67). Increased worry was a common downside (-0.40). Open-ended responses highlighted improved outlook and health management alongside heightened emotional distress and treatment burdens. These findings address gaps in the evidence by documenting the effectiveness of early screening and diagnosis of DMD using sibling data.

Background & Aims: Previous studies have examined the effects of metabolic syndrome (MetS) rather than its severity on race and ethnic disparities in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD). We used the MetS severity score, a validated sex-race-ethnicity-specific severity measure, to examine the effects of race/ethnicity on the association between MetS severity and MASLD., Methods: This study included 10,605 adult participants from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The MASLD diagnosis was based on ultrasound findings in patients without excessive alcohol intake or other liver diseases. MetS severity Z-scores were calculated and stratified into four categories low (1st-50th), moderate (>50th-75th), high (>75th-90th), and very high (>90th+)]. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression models with complex survey methods were used to test the effect of MetS severity on MASLD., Results: The age-adjusted MASLD prevalence was 17.4%, 25.7%, 42.5, and 54.9% in adults with mild, moderate, high, and very high MetS severities, respectively (P-trend <0.001). MetS severity was significantly higher in patients with MASLD than in those without [mean percentile 60th vs. 44th, P<0.001]. Among patients with MASLD, Mexican-American and Black non-Hispanic females had significantly higher age-adjusted MetS severity (68th and 61st, respectively) than White non-Hispanic females 54th, while Black non-Hispanic males had significantly lower MetS severity (56th) than White non-Hispanic males (70th) (P-Interaction = 0.02). Adults with high and very high MetS severity had 2.27 (95% CI:1.70 to 3.03) and 3.12 (95% CI:2.20 to 4.42), respectively, higher adjusted odds of MASLD than those with mild MetS severity., Conclusions: Racial/ethnic disparities in MetS severity play a pivotal role in the risk of MASLD. Our findings highlight the potential clinical utility of the MetS severity score in identifying at-risk individuals, which will help guide targeted prevention and tailoring management strategies to mitigate the MASLD burden., Competing Interests: None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright: © 2024 Elsaid et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are a frequently used method to explore the preferences of patients and other decision-makers in health. Pretesting is an essential stage in the design of a high-quality choice experiment and involves engaging with representatives of the target population to improve the readability, presentation, and structure of the preference instrument. The goal of pretesting in DCEs is to improve the validity, reliability, and relevance of the survey, while decreasing sources of bias, burden, and error associated with preference elicitation, data collection, and interpretation of the data. Despite its value to inform DCE design, pretesting lacks documented good practices or clearly reported applied examples. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to define pretesting and describe the pretesting process specifically in the context of a DCE, (2) to present a practical guide and pretesting interview discussion template for researchers looking to conduct a rigorous pretest of a DCE, and (3) to provide an illustrative example of how these resources were operationalized to inform the design of a complex DCE aimed at eliciting tradeoffs between personal privacy and societal benefit in the context of a police method known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Treatment decision-making for older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is complex and preference-sensitive. We sought to understand the patient experience of treatment decision-making to identify specific challenges in shared decision-making to improve clinical care and to inform the development of directed interventions., Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with newly diagnosed older (≥ 60 years) adults with AML and their caregivers following a semi-structured interview guide at a public safety net academic hospital. Interviews were digitally recorded, and qualitative thematic analysis was employed to synthesize findings., Results: Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted. Age ranged from 62 to 78 years. Patients received intermediate- (50%) or high-intensity (44%) chemotherapy or best supportive care only (6%). Six themes of patient experiences emerged from the analysis: patients (1) felt overwhelmed and in shock at diagnosis, (2) felt powerless to make decisions, (3) felt rushed and unprepared to make a treatment decision, (4) desired to follow oncologist recommendations for treatment, (5) balanced multiple competing factors during treatment decision-making, and (6) desired for ongoing engagement into their care planning. Patients reported many treatment outcomes that were important in treatment decision-making., Conclusions: Older adults with newly diagnosed AML feel devastated and in shock at their diagnosis which appears to contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, unprepared, and rushed into treatment decisions. Because no one factor dominated treatment decision-making for all patients, the use of strategies to elicit individual patient preferences is critical to inform treatment decisions. Interventions are needed to reduce distress and increase a sense of participation in treatment decision-making., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Cabotegravir long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (LA PrEP) is efficacious, with a good safety profile, and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in December 2021. Understanding variations in potential user preferences for LA PrEP may inform implementation and subsequently improve uptake and community-level effectiveness. HIV-negative, sexually active men who have sex with men (MSM) aged ≥15 years were recruited online for the 2019 American Men's Internet Survey, before LA PrEP approval. Respondents completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) with hypothetical LA PrEP attributes (out-of-pocket cost, perceived side effects, injection frequency, perceived stigma, service location). Latent class analysis segmented respondents into groups based on their preferences for the attributes presented, and relative importance of preference weights and willingness-to-pay were calculated. While the majority had never used daily oral PrEP, 73% of the 2489 respondents were very or somewhat likely to use LA PrEP. Three latent classes were identified from 2241 respondents in the DCE. The "side effects-averse" class was the largest group (64% of respondents) and placed 61% relative importance on side effects. The "ambivalent" class (20% of respondents) placed higher importance on stigma (17% of relative importance) than other classes. The "cost-conscious" class (16% of respondents) placed higher relative importance (62%) on cost compared with other attributes and classes. Perceived side effects were an important hypothetical barrier for LA PrEP uptake among a large proportion of potential MSM users. Minimizing out-of-pocket costs is likely to increase uptake and may be important to equitable access. Tailored communication strategies are recommended for the different groups of potential LA PrEP users.

Background: Primary care providers (PCPs) are essential to increasing access to office-based buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Barriers to B-MOUD prescribing are well-documented, but there is little information regarding incentives to overcome these barriers., Objective: To identify optimal incentives for PCPs to promote B-MOUD prescribing and compare incentive preferences across provider and practice characteristics., Design: We surveyed PCPs using best-worst scaling (BWS) to prioritize seven potential incentives for B-MOUD prescribing (monetary compensation, paid vacation, protected time, professional development, reduced workload, service recognition, clinical resources). We then used a direct elicitation approach to determine preferred incentive levels (e.g., monetary thresholds) and types (e.g., specific clinical resources)., Participants: Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a large Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system., Main Measures: B-MOUD prescribing incentive preferences and relative preference levels using descriptive statistics and conditional logistic regression with relative importance scale transformation (coefficients sum to 100, higher coefficient=greater importance)., Key Results: Fifty-three PCPs responded (73% response), including 47% APPs and 36% from community-based clinics. Reduced workload (relative importance score=26.8), protected time (18.7), and clinical resources (16.8) were significantly more preferred (Ps < 0.001) than professional development (10.5), paid vacation (10.3), or service recognition (1.5). Relative importance of monetary compensation varied between physicians (12.6) and APPs (17.5) and between PCPs located at a medical center (11.4) versus community clinic (22.3). APPs were more responsive than physicians to compensation increases of $5000 and $12,000 but less responsive to $25,000; trends were similar for medical center versus community clinic PCPs. The most frequently requested clinical resource was on-demand consult access to an addiction specialist., Conclusions: Interventions promoting workload reductions, protected time, and clinical resources could increase access to B-MOUD in primary care. Monetary incentives may be additionally needed to improve B-MOUD prescribing among APPs and within community clinics., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A national priority in the United States is to promote patient engagement in cancer genomics research, especially among diverse and understudied populations. Several cancer genomics research programs have emerged to accomplish this priority, yet questions remain about the meaning and methods of patient engagement. This study explored how cancer genomics research programs define engagement and what strategies they use to engage patients across stages in the conduct of research. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of cancer genomics research programs focused on patient engagement. Research programs were identified and characterized using materials identified from publicly available sources (e.g., websites), a targeted literature review, and interviews with key informants. Descriptive information about the programs and their definitions of engagement, were synthesized using thematic analysis. The engagement strategies were synthesized and mapped to different stages in the conduct of research, including recruitment, consent, data collection, sharing results, and retention. Results: Ten research programs were identified, examples of which include the Cancer Moonshot Biobank, the MyPART Network, NCI-CONNECT, and the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. All programs aimed to include understudied or underrepresented populations. Based on publicly available information, four programs explicitly defined engagement. These definitions similarly characterized engagement as being interpersonal, reciprocal, and continuous. Five general strategies of engagement were identified across the programs: 1) digital (such as websites) and 2) non-digital communications (such as radio broadcasts, or printed brochures); 3) partnering with community organizations; 4) providing incentives; and 5) affiliating with non-academic medical centers. Digital communications were the only strategy used across all stages of the conduct of research. Programs tailored these strategies to their study goals, including overcoming barriers to research participation among diverse populations. Conclusion: Programs studying cancer genomics are deeply committed to increasing research participation among diverse populations through patient engagement. Yet, the field needs to reach a consensus on the meaning of patient engagement, develop a taxonomy of patient engagement measures in cancer genomics research, and identify optimal strategies to engage patients in cancer genomics. Addressing these needs could enable patient engagement to fulfill its potential and accelerate the pace of cancer genomic discoveries., Competing Interests: EP has grants to the institution from Merck Foundation, Pfizer and Genentech for work outside this project. HH is on the scientific advisory boards for Genome Medical, Invitae Genetics, and Promega, is a consultant for 23andMe, AIM Specialty Health, and GI OnDemand, and has stock/stock options in GI OnDemand and Genome Medical. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Schuster, Crossnohere, Paskett, Thomas, Hampel, Ma, Tiner, Paskett and Bridges.)

Background : Evidence-based treatment is provided infrequently and inconsistently to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). Treatment guidelines call for high-quality, patient-centered care that meets individual preferences and needs, but it is unclear whether current quality measures address individualized aspects of care and whether measures of patient-centered OUD care are supported by evidence. Methods : We conducted an environmental scan of OUD care quality to (1) evaluate patient-centeredness in current OUD quality measures endorsed by national agencies and in national OUD treatment guidelines; and (2) review literature evidence for patient-centered care in OUD diagnosis and management, including gaps in current guidelines, performance data, and quality measures. We then synthesized these findings to develop a new quality measurement taxonomy that incorporates patient-centered aspects of care and identifies priority areas for future research and quality measure development. Results : Across 31 endorsed OUD quality measures, only two measures of patient experience incorporated patient preferences and needs, while national guidelines emphasized providing patient-centered care. Among 689 articles reviewed, evidence varied for practices of patient-centered care. Many practices were supported by guidelines and substantial evidence, while others lacked evidence despite guideline support. Our synthesis of findings resulted in EQuIITable Care, a taxonomy comprised of six classifications: (1) patient E xperience and engagement, (2) Qu ality of life; (3) I dentification of patient risks; (4) I nterventions to mitigate patient risks; (5) T reatment; and (6) Care coordination and navigation. Conclusions : Current quality measurement for OUD lacks patient-centeredness. EQuIITable Care for OUD provides a roadmap to develop measures of patient-centered care for OUD.

Introduction: Electronic cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among U.S. youth, and over 80% of current youth users of e-cigarettes use flavored e-cigarettes, with fruit, mint/menthol, and candy/sweets being the most popular flavors. A number of new e-liquid flavors are currently emerging in the online e-cigarette market. Menthol and other flavored e-cigarettes could incentivize combustible tobacco smokers to transition to e-cigarette use., Methods: From February to May 2021, we scraped data of over 14,000 e-liquid products, including detailed descriptions of their flavors, from five national online vape shops. Building upon the existing e-liquid flavor wheel, we expanded the semantic databases (i.e., key terms) to identify flavors using WordNet-a major database for keyword matching and group discussion. Using the enriched databases, we classified 14,000+ e-liquid products into the following 11 main flavor categories: "fruit", "dessert/candy/sweets", "coffee/tea", "alcohol", "other beverages", "tobacco", "mint/menthol", "nuts", "spices/pepper", "other flavors", and "unspecified flavor"., Results: We find that the most prominent flavor sold in the five online vape shop in 2021 was fruit flavored products, followed by dessert/candy/other sweets. Online vendors often label a product with several flavor profiles, such as fruit and menthol., Conclusions: Given that online stores market products with multiple flavor profiles and most of their products contain fruit flavor, the FDA may have issued marketing denial orders to some of these products. It is important to further examine how online stores respond to the FDA flavor restrictions (e.g., compliance or non-compliance).

Importance: There are no approved treatments for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) despite its association with obesity and increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)., Objective: To examine the association between bariatric surgery and CVD risk in individuals with severe obesity and NAFLD., Design, Setting, and Participants: This large, population-based retrospective cohort study obtained data from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2017. Participants included insured adults aged 18 to 64 years with NAFLD and severe obesity (body mass index ≥40) without a history of bariatric surgery or CVD before NAFLD diagnosis. Baseline characteristics were balanced between individuals who underwent surgery (surgical group) and those who did not (nonsurgical group) using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to April 2021., Exposures: Bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and other bariatric procedures) vs nonsurgical care., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the incidence of cardiovascular events (primary or secondary composite CVD outcomes). The primary composite outcome included myocardial infarction, heart failure, or ischemic stroke, and the secondary composite outcome included secondary ischemic heart events, transient ischemic attack, secondary cerebrovascular events, arterial embolism and thrombosis, or atherosclerosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models with inverse probability treatment weighting were used to examine the associations between bariatric surgery, modeled as time varying, and all outcomes., Results: The study included 86 964 adults (mean [SD] age, 44.3 [10.9] years; 59 773 women [68.7%]). Of these individuals, 30 300 (34.8%) underwent bariatric surgery and 56 664 (65.2%) received nonsurgical care. All baseline covariates were balanced after applying inverse probability treatment weighting. In the surgical group, 1568 individuals experienced incident cardiovascular events compared with 7215 individuals in the nonsurgical group (incidence rate difference, 4.8 [95% CI, 4.5-5.0] per 100 person-years). At the end of the study, bariatric surgery was associated with a 49% lower risk of CVD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.48-0.54) compared with nonsurgical care. The risk of primary composite CVD outcomes was reduced by 47% (aHR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48-0.59), and the risk of secondary composite CVD outcomes decreased by 50% (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.53) in individuals with vs without surgery., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that, compared with nonsurgical care, bariatric surgery was associated with significant reduction in CVD risk in individuals with severe obesity and NAFLD.

Background and Objectives: Caregivers routinely inform medical and regulatory decision making in rare pediatric diseases. While differences in treatment preferences across caregivers and patients have been observed for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, this evidence was limited by small samples of patients and results were confounded by patient age and disease progression. We tested caregiver and patient preference concordance for treating Duchenne., Methods: Preferences and demographic/clinical information from 115 caregivers and 107 patients were collected in an international study (response = 80%) using a previously developed discrete-choice experiment consisting of 12 experimentally controlled choice tasks. Each task presented two profiles that varied across four attributes: disease progression, drug failure probability, kidney damage risk, and fracture risk. Caregivers and patients were matched 1:1 based on patient age. We tested for concordance across each task and by comparing caregivers' and patients' maximum acceptable risk of drug failure, kidney damage, and fracture for a slowing of disease progression., Results: The final analysis included 77 caregivers and 77 patients. No differences were observed in nationality (p = 0.969), disease stage (p = 0.180), or demographic/clinical factors (p = 0.093-0.857); however, patients were more optimistic (p = 0.030). Caregivers and patients chose similarly across tasks (p = 0.101-0.993). To slow disease progression by 1 year, caregivers and patients would tolerate a 9% and 11% increase in drug failure probability, respectively (p = 0.267). Alternatively, they would accept a 3% and 4% increase in the risk of kidney damage (p = 0.719) or a 15% and 20% increase in the risk of fracture (p = 0.534)., Conclusions: Caregivers and patients had concordant preferences for treating Duchenne. Providers and regulators can trust both caregiver and patient report of preferences to inform medical decision making., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)