Search

Some immunomodulatory drugs have been shown to delay the onset of, or lower the risk of developing, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), if given to individuals at risk. Several trials are ongoing in this area; however, little evidence is currently available about the views of those at risk of RA regarding preventive treatment. Three focus groups and three interviews explored factors that are relevant to first degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients and members of the general public when considering taking preventive treatment for RA. The semi-structured qualitative interview prompts explored participant responses to hypothetical attributes of preventive RA medicines. Transcripts of focus group/interview proceedings were inductively coded and analysed using a framework approach. Twenty-one individuals (five FDRs, 16 members of the general public) took part in the study. Ten broad themes were identified describing factors that participants felt would influence their decisions about whether to take preventive treatment if they were at increased risk of RA. These related either directly to features of the specific treatment or to other factors, including personal characteristics, attitude towards taking medication, and an individual's actual risk of developing RA. This research highlights the importance of non-treatment factors in the decision-making process around preventive treatments, and will inform recruitment to clinical trials as well as information to support shared decision making by those considering preventive treatment. Studies of treatment preferences in individuals with a confirmed high risk of RA would further inform clinical trial design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the brain and spinal cord, characterized by immune-mediated myelin damage. Early intervention and detection programs have emerged as promising strategies to improve patient outcomes by identifying and treating MS in its earliest stages., Objective: This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of the preferences, attitudes, and opinions of both patients and healthcare professionals regarding early intervention or early detection programs for MS., Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was employed in March 2023 across multiple databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, PubMed), from 1990 to 2023. A total of 38 articles were selected for analysis based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria., Results: The majority of articles were published in recent years and represented different methods from case reports to randomized controlled trials, with fewer systematic literature reviews. Data collection approaches included patients, healthcare workers, or mixed samples with varying age ranges and gender ratios, frequently preferring women. These samples represented different preference study methods. The included studies were primarily conducted in the USA and the UK. Thematic analysis revealed several key themes : 1) differences emerged between healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives 2) interventions for MS outside Disease-Modifying Therapies (DMTs) 3) severe side effects 4) communication, information, and knowledge 5) psychological and emotional aspects., Conclusions: Understanding these diverse factors and subgroups within the MS population can inform more effective, personalized approaches to MS prevention and treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The Authors declare having no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: Over the last few decades, there have been significant improvements in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the development of new treatments and guidelines for teamwork and patient self-care and access to digital tools. This study aimed to explore the experiences of individuals with RA interacting with healthcare. It also looked at how a self-care application, an educational programme called the 'healthcare encounter', improved patient-doctor communication., Design: Semistructured interviews were conducted, and qualitative content analysis was performed., Setting: The potential participants, individuals with established, or under investigation for, RA diagnosis at rheumatology clinics in Sweden, were asked to participate in the study via a digital self-care application called the Elsa Science Self-care app., Participants: Ten interviews were performed with participants from nine clinics following a meeting with the rheumatologist or other healthcare personnel between September 2022 and October 2022. Phrases, sentences or paragraphs referring to experiences from healthcare meetings and opinions about the digital programme were identified and coded. Codes that reflected similar concepts were grouped; subcategories were formulated, and categories were connected to their experiences and opinions., Results: Among our participants, three main categories emerged: the availability of healthcare, individual efforts to have a healthier life and personal interaction with healthcare. Participants described that the 'healthcare encounter' educational programme can be a source of information, which confirms, supports and creates a sense of control., Conclusion: The participants valued being seen and taking part in a dialogue when they had prepared themselves (observed symptoms over time and prepared questions). The implementation of digital self-care applications might need to be incorporated into the healthcare setting, so that both the patients and the healthcare personnel have a shared understanding. Collaboration is essential in this context., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KSB and JVJ have no conflicts of interest to declare. HB is employed at Elsa Science as a Health educator and User researcher., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: We aimed to empirically compare maximum acceptable risk results estimated using both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT)., Methods: Members of the UK general public (n = 982) completed an online survey including a DCE and a PTT (in random order) measuring their preferences for preventative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. For the DCE, a Bayesian D-efficient design consisting of four blocks of 15 choice tasks was constructed including six attributes with varying levels. The PTT used identical risk and benefit attributes. For the DCE, a panel mixed-logit model was conducted, both mean and individual estimates were used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. For the PTT, interval regression was used to calculate maximum acceptable risk. Perceived complexity of the choice tasks and preference heterogeneity were investigated for both methods., Results: Maximum acceptable risk confidence intervals of both methods overlapped for serious infection and serious side effects but not for mild side effects (maximum acceptable risk was 32.7 percent-points lower in the PTT). Although, both DCE and PTT tasks overall were considered easy or very easy to understand and answer, significantly more respondents rated the DCE choice tasks as easier to understand compared with those who rated the PTT as easier (7-percentage point difference; p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Maximum acceptable risk estimate confidence intervals based on a DCE and a PTT overlapped for two out of the three included risk attributes. More respondents rated the DCE as easier to understand. This may suggest that the DCE is better suited in studies estimating maximum acceptable risk for multiple risk attributes of differing severity, while the PTT may be better suited when measuring heterogeneity in maximum acceptable risk estimates or when investigating one or more serious adverse events., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project 'Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle' (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit-risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions., Methods and Analysis: This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92&#95;17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MF, GS, LVM, ME, KB, UK, BH and JV have no competing interests to declare. RLD is employed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals and is a shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. CR is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company. ST-L is employed by Sanofi R&D and is a shareholder of Sanofi. KR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from UCB, personal fees from Janssen, and personal fees from Roche Chugai, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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.)

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.)