Search

Objectives: This study aimed to understand the importance of criteria describing methods (eg, duration, costs, validity, and outcomes) according to decision makers for each decision point in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of a discrete choice experiment, swing weighting, probabilistic threshold technique, and best-worst scale cases 1 and 2 at each decision point in the MPLC., Methods: Applying multicriteria decision analysis, an online survey was sent to MPLC decision makers (ie, industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment representatives). They ranked and weighted 19 methods criteria from an existing performance matrix about their respective decisions across the MPLC. All criteria were given a relative weight based on the ranking and rating in the survey after which an overall suitability score was calculated for each preference elicitation method per decision point. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to reflect uncertainty in the performance matrix., Results: Fifty-nine industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 health technology assessment representatives completed the surveys. Overall, "estimating trade-offs between treatment characteristics" and "estimating weights for treatment characteristics" were highly important criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, whereas other criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Swing weighting and probabilistic threshold technique received significantly higher suitability scores across decision points than other methods. Sensitivity analyses showed substantial impact of uncertainty in the performance matrix., Conclusion: Although discrete choice experiment is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of decision makers. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion : Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets., Competing Interests: The 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 © 2022 Simoens, Abdallah, Barbier, Lacosta, Blonda, Car, Claessens, Desmet, De Sutter, Govaerts, Janssens, Lalova, Moorkens, Saesen, Schoefs, Vandenplas, Van Overbeeke, Verbaanderd and Huys.)

Introduction: With the development of gene therapy for people with haemophilia (PWH), it is important to understand how people impacted by haemophilia (PIH) and clinicians prioritise haemophilia treatment attributes to support informed treatment decisions., Objective: To examine the treatment attribute preferences of PIH and clinical experts in the United Kingdom (UK) and to develop a profile of gene therapy characteristics fit for use in future discrete choice experiments (DCEs)., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with PIH (n = 14) and clinical experts (n = 6) who ranked pre-defined treatment attributes by importance. Framework analysis was conducted to identify key themes and treatment attributes; points were allocated based on the rankings. Synthesis of results by a multidisciplinary group informed development of a profile of gene therapy characteristics for use in future research., Results: Key themes identified by PIH and clinical experts included patient relevant features and the importance of 'informed decision making'. The six top-ranked treatment attributes were 'effect on factor level' (79 points), 'uncertainty regarding long-term risks' (57 points), 'impact on daily life' (41 points), 'frequency of monitoring' (33 points), 'impact on ability to participate in physical activity' (29 points), and 'uncertainty regarding long-term benefits' (28 points). The final treatment characteristics were categorised as therapeutic option, treatment effectiveness, safety concerns, impact on self-management and quality of life (role limitations)., Conclusion: We identified several gene therapy characteristics important to PIH and clinicians in the UK. These characteristics will be used in a future DCE to further investigate patient preferences for gene therapy., (© 2022 Pfizer Inc. Haemophilia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The aim of the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study was to investigate trade-offs that adult Belgian people with haemophilia (PWH) A and B are willing to make when choosing between prophylactic factor replacement therapy (PFRT) and gene therapy., Methods: The threshold technique was used to quantify the minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) of a switch from PFRT to gene therapy in terms of 'Annual bleeding rate' (ABR), 'Chance to stop prophylaxis' (STOP), and 'Quality of life' (QOL). The design was supported by stakeholder involvement and included an educational tool on gene therapy. Threshold intervals were analysed using interval regression models in Stata 16., Results: A total of 117 PWH completed the survey. Mean thresholds were identified for all benefits, but substantial preference heterogeneity was observed; especially for the STOP thresholds, where the distribution of preferences was bimodal. Time spent on the educational tool and residence were found to impact MAB thresholds. The most accepted (88% of PWH) gene therapy profile investigated in this study comprised of zero bleeds per year (vs. six for PFRT), 90% chance to stop prophylaxis, no impact on QoL, and 10 years of follow-up on side effects (vs. 30 for PFRT)., Conclusions: Results from this study proved the value of educating patients on novel treatments. Moreover, preference heterogeneity for novel treatments was confirmed in this study. In gene therapy decision-making, preference heterogeneity and the impact of patient education on acceptance should be considered., (© 2021 The Authors. Haemophilia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: It has become increasingly important to include patient preference information in decision-making processes for drug development. As neuromuscular disorders represent multisystem, debilitating, and progressive rare diseases with few treatment options, this study aimed to explore unmet health care needs and patient treatment preferences for two neuromuscular disorders, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM) to inform early stages of drug development., Methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews and five focus group discussions (FGDs) were held with DM1 and MM adult patients and caregivers. Topics discussed included (1) reasons for study participation; (2) disease signs/symptoms and their impact on daily lives; (3) top desired benefits; and (4) acceptability of risks and tolerance levels for a hypothetical new treatment. Data were analyzed following a thematic 'code' approach., Results: A total of 52 participants representing a wide range of disease severities participated. 'Muscle strength' and 'energy and endurance' were the disease-related unmet needs most often mentioned. Additionally, improved 'balance', 'cognition' and 'gut function' were the top desired treatment benefits, while 'damage to the liver, kidneys or eyes' was the most concerning risk. Factors influencing their tolerance to risks related to previously having experienced the risk and differentiation between permanent and temporary risks. A few differences were elicited between patients and caregivers., Conclusions: This qualitative study provided an open forum to elicit treatment-desired benefits and acceptable risks to be established by patients themselves. These findings can inform decisions for developing new treatments and the design of clinical trials for DM1 and MM., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Gene therapies are innovative therapies that are increasingly being developed. However, health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making on these therapies is impeded by uncertainties, especially regarding long-term outcomes. Through measuring patient preferences regarding gene therapies, the importance of unique elements that go beyond health gain can be quantified and inform value assessments. We designed a study, namely the Patient preferences to Assess Value IN Gene therapies (PAVING) study, that can inform HTA and payers by investigating trade-offs that adult Belgian hemophilia A and B patients are willing to make when asked to choose between a standard of care and gene therapy. Methods and Analysis: An eight-step approach was taken to establish the protocol for this study: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) initial attributes identification, (3) stakeholder (HTA and payer) needs identification, (4) patient relevant attributes and information needs identification, (5) level identification and choice task construction, (6) educational tool design, (7) survey integration, and (8) piloting and pretesting. In the end, a threshold technique survey was designed using the attributes "Annual bleeding rate," "Chance to stop prophylaxis," "Time that side effects have been studied," and "Quality of Life." Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethics Committee of UZ KU Leuven/Research approved the study. Results from the study will be presented to stakeholders and patients at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We hope that results from the PAVING study can inform decision makers on the acceptability of uncertainties and the value of gene therapies to patients., Competing Interests: The 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 © 2021 van Overbeeke, Hauber, Michelsen, Goldman, Simoens and Huys.)

This review can inform gene therapy developers on challenges that can be encountered when seeking market access. Moreover, it provides an overview of trends among challenges and potential solutions., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Patient preferences can be informative for health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making. However, applications may be different per country. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate HTA representatives' opinions on whether and how to incorporate patient preferences in HTA in their respective countries., Methods: Three country-specific focus groups were conducted with three to seven HTA representatives from Germany, Belgium, and Canada. A predefined focus group guide was used that covered topics relating to how patient preferences can be used in HTA, namely HTA stage, weight, impact, and quality, as well as a case example of gene therapy. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 following thematic analysis., Results: Across all HTA bodies, an interest in the use of patient preferences was observed for scientific advice and value assessments, but not through incorporation in quality-adjusted life-years and multi-criteria decision analysis. HTA representatives found it difficult to determine the weight patient preferences may receive in decision making, but thought it could have an impact on payer decision making if the study is of acceptable quality., Conclusions: In the near future it may be impossible to achieve structural integration of patient preferences with other evidence in HTA (e.g., in cost-effectiveness analysis), but HTA bodies are willing to incorporate patient preferences in other HTA sections as supportive evidence. To allow for that use, future work should focus on meeting HTA and payer needs when conducting patient preference studies and on education of HTA and payer representatives regarding these studies.

Introduction: Exploring patient perceptions regarding gene therapies may provide insights about their acceptability to patients., Objective: To investigate opinions of people with haemophilia (PWH) regarding gene therapies. Moreover, this study aimed to identify patient-relevant attributes (treatment features) that influence PWH's treatment choices., Methods: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with Belgian PWH, types A and B. A predefined interview guide included information sections and open, attribute ranking and case questions. Qualitative data were organized using NVivo 12 and analysed following framework analysis. Sum totals of scores obtained in the ranking exercise were calculated per attribute., Results: In total, 20 PWH participated in the interviews. Most participants demonstrated a positive attitude towards gene therapy and were very willing (40%; n = 8) or willing (35%; n = 7) to receive this treatment. The following five attributes were identified as most important to PWH in making their choice: annual bleeding rate, factor level, uncertainty of long-term risks, impact on daily life, and probability that prophylaxis can be stopped. While participants were concerned about the uncertainty regarding long-term safety, most participants were less concerned about uncertainty regarding long-term efficacy., Conclusions: This qualitative study showed that most PWH have a positive attitude towards gene therapy and that besides efficacy, safety and the related uncertainties, also impact on daily life is important to patients. The identified patient-relevant attributes may be used by regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers in their evaluation of gene therapies for haemophilia. Moreover, they may inform clinical trial design, pay-for-performance schemes and real-world evidence studies., (© 2020 The Authors. Haemophilia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients' healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making., Objectives: The aims were to: 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information., Methods: A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted., Results: Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future., Conclusion: Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Patient preference studies are increasingly used to inform decision-making during the medical product lifecycle but are rarely used to inform early stages of drug development.  The primary aim of this study is to quantify treatment preferences of patients with neuromuscular disorders, which represent serious and debilitating conditions with limited or no treatment options available. Methods: This quantitative patient preferences study was designed as an online survey, with a cross-over design.  This study will target two different diseases from the neuromuscular disorders disease group, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and mitochondrial myopathies (MM). Despite having different physio-pathological pathways both DM1 and MM manifest in a clinically similar manner and may benefit from similar treatment options.  The sample will be stratified into three subgroups: two patient groups differentiated by age of symptom onset and one caregivers group.   Each subgroup will be randomly assigned to complete two of three different preference elicitation methods at two different time points: Q-methodology survey, discrete choice experiment, and best-worst scaling type 2, allowing cross-comparisons of the results across each study time within participants and within elicitation methods. Additional variables such as sociodemographic, clinical and health literacy will be collected to enable analysis of potential heterogeneity. Ethics and Dissemination: This study protocol has undergone ethical review and approval by the Newcastle University R&D Ethics Committee (Ref: 15169/2018). All participants will be invited to give electronic informed consent to take part in the study prior accessing the online survey. All electronic data will be anonymised prior analysis. This study is part of the Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (IMI-PREFER) project, a public-private collaborative research project aiming to develop expert and evidence-based recommendations on how and when patient preferences can be assessed and used to inform medical product decision making., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2020 Jimenez-Moreno AC et al.)

Objective: This study aimed to obtain a comprehensive overview on the perception, attitudes, and experience of European pharmacists with prospective risk assessment procedures in everyday practice, as well as to identify challenges and solutions. This is a follow-up study to the surveys on prospective risk assessment previously carried out within the COST Action 15105 among pharmacists across Europe. Methodology: In-depth interviews were performed using an interview guide comprising 25 questions. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and imported into NVivo 10 for framework analysis. In NVivo, the interviews were coded through assigning text segments to a responding code from a coding tree, covering the full content of the interviews. Coded text segments were then charted into a matrix, and analyzed by interpreting all text segments per code. Results: In total, 18 interviews were conducted. From the framework analysis, 6 codes and 12 sub-codes emerged. Overall, despite citing specific issues pertaining to its implementation, the interviewees considered multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary prospective risk assessment to be essential. While healthcare professionals reported being aware of the importance of risk assessment, they cited insufficient knowledge and skills to be a major obstacle in everyday practice. They also reported inadequate IT support since a paper-based system is still widely in use, thereby complicating data extraction to carry out prospective risk assessment. Conclusion: While prospective risk assessment was found to be valuable, interviewees also found it to be a resource-intensive and time-consuming process. Due to resource constraints, it may not be possible or desirable to conduct prospective risk assessment for every shortage. However, for critical-essential drugs, it is crucial to have a ready-to-use substitute based on risk assessment. Moreover, potential risks of substitutes on patient health should be identified before a shortage occurs and the substitute is dispensed as an alternative., (Copyright © 2020 Miljković, van Overbeeke, Godman, Kovačević, Anastasi, Bochenek, Huys and Miljković.)

Introduction: Medicine shortages result in great risk for the continuity of patient care especially for antimicrobial treatment, potentially enhancing resistance rates and having a higher economic impact. This study aims to identify, describe, assess, and assign risk priority levels to potential failures following substitution of antimicrobial treatment due to shortages among European hospitals. Furthermore, the study investigated the impact of corrective actions on risk reduction so as to provide guidance and improve future patient care. Methods: Health-care failure mode and effect analysis (HFMEA) was applied to hospitals in Austria (H-AT), Belgium (H-BE), Croatia (H-CR), Greece (H-GR), Spain (H-SP), and Serbia (H-SR). Multidisciplinary teams identified processes, failure modes, causes, and corrective actions related to antibiotic substitution following medicine shortages. Characteristics of study hospitals as well as severity, probability, and hazard scores (HSs) of failure modes/causes were analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics® via descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Through HFMEA, 74 failure modes were identified, with 53 of these scoring 8 or above on the basis of assigned severity and probability for a failure. Severity of failure modes differed before and after corrective actions in H-CR, H-GR, and H-SR ( p < 0.005). Their probability differed in all study hospitals ( p < 0.005) when compared before and after corrective actions aimed to be implemented. The highest number of failure-mode causes was detected in H-CR (46) and the lowest in H-SP (16). Corrective actions can address failure modes and lower HSs; therein, all teams proposed the following: structuring communication among stakeholders, introducing electronic prescribing, strengthening pharmacists' involvement, and increasing effectiveness of the ward stock assessment. These proposed actions led to HS reductions up to 83%. Conclusion: There is a lack of structure in addressing risks associated with antibiotic substitution following shortages. Furthermore, lack of communication, data scarcity on availability of antibiotics, non-supportive information technology (IT) systems, and lack of internal substitution protocols hinder quick assessment of alternatives addressing patient needs. Nevertheless, the study shows that health-care professionals manage to secure optimal antimicrobial treatment for patients using available IT and human resources., (Copyright © 2020 Miljković, Godman, van Overbeeke, Kovačević, Tsiakitzis, Apatsidou, Nikopoulou, Yubero, Portillo Horcajada, Stemer, Kuruc-Poje, De Rijdt, Bochenek, Huys and Miljković.)

Objectives: A factor contributing to the value of patient preference studies is patient centricity. This study aimed to explore how patients want to be involved in the design and conduct of patient preference studies. In addition, we investigated patients' expectations regarding the communication of study results back to patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patient representatives within three different disease areas: rheumatic diseases, cancer, and neuromuscular disorders. For each disease area, interviews were conducted with interviewees from Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Interviews followed a predefined interview guide covering topics relating to timing, level, and requirements for patient involvement in patient preference studies, as well as communication of results. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis in NVivo 12. Results: A total of 14 interviews were conducted. Some interviewees believed that patients should be involved in all steps of a patient preference study. Patient involvement seemed most valuable during the design phase to support defining research questions and instrument design. During analysis, patients can be involved for optimal interpretation of results. Most interviewees mentioned that patient involvement should be on the level of advice or collaboration, not control. Interviewees expressed requirements for patient involvement relating to the knowledge of the involved patient, time investment, compensation and other incentives. Regarding communication of results, most interviewees wished to receive a brief and lay summary of the results, followed by a detailed explanation of both individual and average results accompanied by visuals. Conclusions: Patient involvement in patient preference studies could increase question comprehension by study participants and ensure correct interpretation of results by researchers. Patients want to be involved as advisors or collaborators, and considering their personal situation as well as establishing agreements on roles, time involvement and compensation early on will result in a most optimal partnership., (Copyright © 2020 van Overbeeke, Vanbinst, Jimenez-Moreno and Huys.)

EUPATI Belgium (EUPATI.be) is an informal gathering of local partners who are interested in improving patient involvement in healthcare innovation and medicines research and development. EUPATI.be brings together various stakeholders from different areas related to healthcare including patients, academia and industry. In doing so, we create an innovative collaborative approach where actors from different backgrounds work toward improving patient involvement in medical research, and putting the patient at the center of the Belgian healthcare system. Previously, we performed in-depth interviews with a small group of stakeholders on patient involvement. Here, we elaborate on our previous findings by using a nation-wide survey to inquire into Belgian stakeholders' perception on patient involvement. To this end, an electronic survey was available in French, Dutch and English, and accessible for 11 months. Twelve questions were asked, including 11 multiple choice questions and 1 open question. The latter was thematically analyzed according to the framework method. A total of 117 responses were registered and descriptive statistics were performed. The majority of respondents could be categorized into patient, academia and industry, whereas policy makers, payers, and healthcare professionals were underrepresented. We identified several barriers that hamper patient involvement, which were sometimes more reported by specific stakeholder groups. Next, we found that various stakeholders still consider patient involvement as a passive role, i.e., medical subject in a clinical trial. Respondents also reported that the role of the various stakeholders needed more clarification; this was also confirmed by the level of trust amongst the various stakeholders. Existing and the wish for more collaboration with the various stakeholders was reported by almost all respondents. Based on this survey, we can define the potential of involving patients in the medical research and development in the Belgian landscape. Our results will help to understand and tackle the various barriers that currently hamper patient involvement, whilst highlighting the need for a collaborative landscape from the multi-stakeholder perspective., (Copyright © 2020 Grine, Janssens, van Overbeeke, Derijcke, Silva, Delys, Dusart, Aertsen, Mertens de Wilmars, Robaczewska and Stevens.)

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making. Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo. Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA. Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making., (Copyright © 2019 van Overbeeke, Janssens, Whichello, Schölin Bywall, Sharpe, Nikolenko, Phillips, Guiddi, Pravettoni, Vergani, Marton, Cleemput, Simoens, Kübler, Juhaeri, Levitan, de Bekker-Grob, Veldwijk and Huys.)

Background: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making., Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international)., Results: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies., Conclusions: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Background: Patient preferences (PP), which are investigated in PP studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, are a growing area of interest to the following stakeholders involved in the medical product lifecycle: academics, health technology assessment bodies, payers, industry, patients, physicians, and regulators. However, the use of PP in decisions along the medical product lifecycle remains limited. As the adoption of PP heavily relies on these stakeholders, knowledge of their perceptions of PP is critical., Objective: This study aimed to characterize stakeholders' attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle., Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with academics (n = 24), health technology assessment/payer representatives (n = 24), industry representatives (n = 24), patients, caregivers and patient representatives (n = 24), physicians (n = 24), and regulators (n = 23) from seven European countries and the USA. Interviews were conducted between April and August 2017. The framework method was used to organize the data and identify themes and key findings in each interviewed stakeholder group., Results: Interviewees reported being unfamiliar (43%), moderately familiar (42%), or very familiar (15%) with preference methods and studies. Interviewees across stakeholder groups generally supported the idea of using PP in the medical product lifecycle but expressed mixed opinions about the feasibility and impact of using PP in decision making. Interviewees from all stakeholder groups stressed the importance of increasing stakeholders' understanding of the concept of PP and preference methods and ensuring patients' understanding of the questions asked in PP studies. Key concerns and needs in each interviewed stakeholder group were as follows: (1) academics: investigating the validity, reliability, reproducibility, and generalizability of preference methods; (2) health technology assessment/payer representatives: developing quality criteria for evaluating PP studies and gaining insights into how to weigh them in reimbursement/payer decision making; (3) industry representatives: obtaining guidance on PP studies and recognition on the importance of PP from decision makers; (4) patients, caregivers, and patient representatives: providing an incentive and adequate information towards patients when participating in PP studies; (5) physicians: avoiding bias as a result of commercial agendas in PP studies and clarifying how to deal with subjective and emotional elements when measuring PP; and (6) regulators: avoiding the misuse of PP study results to overrule the traditional efficacy and safety criteria used for marketing authorization and obtaining robust PP study results., Conclusions: Despite the interest all interviewed stakeholder groups reported in PP, the effective use of PP in decision making across the medical product lifecycle is currently hampered by a lack of standardization and consensus on how to both measure and use PP.

Objectives: Patient preference information (PPI) is gaining recognition among the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies/payers for use in assessments and decision-making along the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to identify factors and situations that influence the value of patient preference studies (PPS) in decision-making along the MPLC according to different stakeholders. Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 143) were conducted with six different stakeholder groups (physicians, academics, industry representatives, regulators, HTA/payer representatives, and a combined group of patients, caregivers, and patient representatives) from seven European countries (the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Romania, Germany, France, and the Netherlands) and the United States. Framework analysis was performed using NVivo 11 software. Results: Fifteen factors affecting the value of PPS in the MPLC were identified. These are related to: study organization (expertise, financial resources, study duration, ethics and good practices, patient centeredness), study design (examining patient and/or other preferences, ensuring representativeness, matching method to research question, matching method to MPLC stage, validity and reliability, cognitive burden, patient education, attribute development), and study conduct (patients' ability/willingness to participate and preference heterogeneity). Three types of situations affecting the use of PPS results were identified (stakeholder acceptance, market situations, and clinical situations). Conclusion: The factors and situation types affecting the value of PPS, as identified in this study, need to be considered when designing and conducting PPS in order to promote the integration of PPI into decision-making along the MPLC., (Copyright © 2019 Whichello, van Overbeeke, Janssens, Schölin Bywall, Russo, Veldwijk, Cleemput, Juhaeri, Levitan, Kübler, Smith, Hermann, Englbrecht, Hueber, Comanescu, Harding, Simoens, Huys and de Bekker-Grob.)

Preference studies are becoming increasingly important within the medical product decision-making context. Currently, there is limited understanding of the range of methods to gain insights into patient preferences. We developed a compendium and taxonomy of preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods by conducting a systematic literature review to identify these methods. This review was followed by analyzing prior preference method reviews, to cross-validate our results, and consulting intercontinental experts, to confirm our outcomes. This resulted in the identification of 32 unique preference methods. The developed compendium and taxonomy can serve as an important resource for assessing these methods and helping to determine which are most appropriate for different research questions at varying points in the medical product lifecycle., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Late and misdiagnoses of rare disease patients are common and often result in medical, physical and mental burden for the patient, and financial and emotional burden for the patient's family. Low rare disease awareness among physicians is believed to be one of the reasons for these late and misdiagnoses of rare disease patients. The aim of this study was to investigate how information and education could be tailored to the needs and preferences of physicians in Belgium to increase their rare disease awareness and support them in diagnosing patients with a rare disorder. Nine exploratory interviews with Belgian rare disease experts were performed in December 2016 to help the development of a questionnaire on information needs of physicians and their consulted information sources in rare disease awareness and diagnosis. This online questionnaire was then completed by Belgian physicians (n = 295), including general practitioners (GPs), pediatricians and other specialists (i.e. neurologists, pediatric neurologists, endocrinologists and pediatric endocrinologists) during January and February 2017., Results: Rare disease knowledge and awareness were the lowest among GPs and the highest among specialists. Interviewed experts indicated that physicians' academic and continuous medical education should be focused more on "red flags" to increase rare disease attentiveness in daily clinical practice. GPs scored their academic education on rare diseases as insufficient but pediatricians and other specialists scored it significantly better (p < 0.001). Even though GPs declared to only need information on rare diseases when having a rare disease patient in their practice, specialists indicated to need more rare disease information in general. Most physicians confirmed that they had specific information needs regarding rare diseases. Unlike specialists, the majority of GPs were unaware of information sources such as Orphanet., Conclusion: In order to effectively support physicians in Belgium to diagnose rare diseases early, the academic medical education on rare diseases should be revised. Teaching methods should be focused more on casuistry and "red flags". An Orphanet-like digital platform about rare disease symptoms, diagnostic tests and reference centers might be ideal to support correct and timely diagnosis.

Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient involvement is often acknowledged as an important aspect of the lifecycle of medicines. Although different typologies exist, patient involvement has been described as the involvement of patients in decision-making regarding medicines. In view of the diversity of stakeholders and types of decisions in which patients might be involved, an in-depth understanding of these stakeholders' views toward involving patients in the lifecycle of medicines is essential. Methods: Interviews and surveys were used to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of Belgian healthcare stakeholders. Interviews ( n = 22) were conducted with academics, hospital pharmacists and representatives from health insurance funds, the Belgian reimbursement agency, pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations. Interviews underwent a framework analysis . Surveys ( n = 108) were completed by hospital visitors and analyzed descriptively. Results: Despite an increasing amount of efforts to involve patients, interviewees labeled the level of actively involving patients as rather low and scattered across the different phases of the lifecycle of medicines. The main opportunities for patient involvement highlighted by interviewees were for: (i) informing early development decisions on which treatments to develop, (ii) clinical trial endpoint selection and (iii) clinical trial protocol design. However, remaining questions surrounding patient knowledge, and particularly how and which patients to involve represent important barriers toward implementing patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines. Of survey participants, 77% indicated to be willing to participate in patient preference studies. Reasons for participating mentioned most frequently were "to improve development of treatments," because "it is important to explore and listen to patient preferences" and "to have a voice as patients". Conclusions: The barriers identified in this study hamper transitioning patient involvement from theory to practice. Bridging this gap requires addressing the identified barriers and unresolved questions surrounding the right methodology for involving patients, the "right patients" to involve and means to increase patient knowledge. In order to do so, further research should focus on assessing the value of methods that allow to indirectly capture patients' perspective both in the context of development as well as in the context of evaluation.

Background: Among patients and rheumatologists, current knowledge and perception of biosimilars in comparison with originator biologics is unknown., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate this knowledge and perception in Belgian rheumatologists and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients., Methods: Anonymous web surveys were conducted in Belgian RA patients (n = 121) and rheumatologists (n = 41) during the period January-March 2016. The surveys covered topics on knowledge, similarity, price, preference, interchangeability, extrapolation and switching. Descriptive and statistical analyses of responses were performed., Results: Familiarity with biosimilars was reported by 49% of patients, of whom 77% knew what biosimilars were. RA patients equally questioned the proven efficacy of originators and biosimilars in RA, as well as their side effects and suitability. Furthermore, RA patients questioned the safety of biosimilars more often than that of originators (35 vs. 20%, respectively; p = 0.0094). Rheumatologists, more so than patients, expressed concerns that there might be differences between originators and biosimilars in terms of quality, safety, and price (p = 0.0292, p < 0.0001, p = 0.0129, respectively). The opinions of rheumatologists on interchangeability and extrapolation of indications varied. The price of an originator contributed substantially to the medicine preference of rheumatologists (p = 0.0002), but not patients., Conclusion: Our study showed that rheumatologists, more so than patients, were convinced that there can be differences between originators and biosimilars. Despite safety being the major concern of patients, patients trusted their physician's decision to start on or switch to a biosimilar. The evolution of the uptake of biosimilars in Belgium might thus depend mainly on the perception of physicians.