Elicitation of societal preferences for chronic lymphocytic leukemia’s treatments: a discrete choice experiment

References

• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34. doi:10.3322/caac.21551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallek M, Cheson BD, Catovsky D, et al. iwCLL guidelines for diagnosis, indications for treatment, response assessment, and supportive management of CLL. Blood. 2018;131(25):2745–2760. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-09-806398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichhorst B, Robak T, Montserrat E, et al. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(1):23–33. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sant M, Allemani C, Tereanu C, et al. Incidence of hematologic malignancies in Europe by morphologic subtype: results of the HAEMACARE project. Blood. 2010;116(19):3724–3734. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-05-282632
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer P, Hallek M. Prognostic factors in chronic lymphocytic leukemia—what do we need to know? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8(1):38–47. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kipps TJ, Choi MY. Targeted therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer J. 2019;25(6):378–385. doi:10.1097/PPO.0000000000000416
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shustik C, Bence-Bruckler I, Delage R, et al. Advances in the treatment of relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Ann Hematol. 2017;96(7):1185–1196. doi:10.1007/s00277-017-2982-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallek M, Shanafelt TD, Eichhorst B. Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Lancet. 2018;391(10129):1524–1537. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30422-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walewska R, Parry-Jones N, Eyre TA, et al. Guideline for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Haematol. 2022;197(5):544–557. doi:10.1111/bjh.18075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: revisions and Reflections in Response to Comments Received. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2925–2934. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks L, Polisena J, Scott AM, et al. Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in health technology assessment: a survey of international agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(6):715–723. doi:10.1017/S0266462317000976
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Souliotis K. Public and patient involvement in health policy: a continuously growing field. Health Expect. 2016;19(6):1171–1172. doi:10.1111/hex.12523
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andreasen PB. Consensus conferences in different countries. Aims and perspectives. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4(2):305–308. doi:10.1017/s0266462300004104
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ong BN. The lay perspective in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;12(3):511–517.
   Google Scholar
• Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, et al. "It all depends": conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1518–1526. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.036
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, et al. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: a population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(12):1165–1174. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70442-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D. The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science. 1986;5(4):275–297. doi:10.1287/mksc.5.4.275
   Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application, Vol. 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3(3):57–72. doi:10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrd JC, Hillmen P, Ghia P, et al. Acalabrutinib versus ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of the first randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(31):3441–3452. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.01210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghia P, Pluta A, Wach M, et al. ASCEND: phase III, randomized trial of acalabrutinib versus idelalisib plus rituximab or bendamustine plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(25):2849–2861. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.03355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W, et al. Acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil and obinutuzmab for treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (ELEVATE TN): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10232):1278–1291. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30262-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seymour JF, Kipps TJ, Eichhorst B, et al. Venetoclax-rituximab in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(12):1107–1120. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1713976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto - Calquence. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/calquence-epar-product-information_it.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto - Imbruvica. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/imbruvica-epar-product-information_it.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency (EMA). Riassunto delle Caratteristiche del Prodotto - Venclyxto. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/venclyxto-epar-product-information_it.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Patel K, Pagel JM. Current and future treatment strategies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14(1):69. doi:10.1186/s13045-021-01054-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield C, Masaquel A, Sutphin J, et al. Patients’ priorities in selecting chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments. Blood Adv. 2017;1(24):2176–2185. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2017007294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koffman B, Stewart C, Avruch L, et al. Awareness, knowledge, and preferences of United States (US) patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and their caregivers related to finite duration (FD) therapy and minimal (measurable) residual disease (MRD). Blood. 2021;138(Supplement 1):1927–1927. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-145046
   Google Scholar
• Molica S, Laurenti L, Ghia P, et al. COVID-19 pandemic impact on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients’ preferences towards therapies: the Italian experience (CHOICE study). Blood. 2021;138(Supplement 1):4690–4690. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-148308
   Google Scholar
• Landfeldt E, Eriksson J, Ireland S, et al. Patient, physician, and general population preferences for treatment characteristics in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a conjoint analysis. Leuk Res. 2016;40:17–23. doi:10.1016/j.leukres.2015.11.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le H, Pendergraft T, Wahlstrom SK, et al. Understanding clinician and patient preferences about novel agents in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2019;134(Supplement_1):4730–4730. doi:10.1182/blood-2019-129606
   Google Scholar
• Le H, Ryan K, Wahlstrom SK, et al. Oncologist and patient preferences for novel agents in first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: commonalities and disconnects. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:99–110. doi:10.2147/PPA.S289139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Stevens K, Labeit A, et al. Using a discrete-choice experiment involving cost to value a classification system measuring the quality-of-life impact of self-management for diabetes. Value Health. 2018;21(1):69–77. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChoiceMetrics. Ngene (version 1.2); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–677. doi:10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Yang J-C, Reed SD. The internal validity of discrete choice experiment data: a testing tool for quantitative assessments. Value Health. 2019;22(2):157–160. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.876
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, et al. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8(5):373–384. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sedgwick P. Proportional quota sampling. BMJ. 2012;345(sep26 3):e6336–e6336. doi:10.1136/bmj.e6336
   Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ. 2000;15(5):447–470. doi:10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mixed logit modeling in Stata – an overview. Hole AR, editor. Stata users’ group meetings 2013. United Kingdom: Stata Users Group; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Fiebig DG, Hole AR. Discrete choice experiments: a guide to model specification, estimation and software. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):697–716. doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0506-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurenti L, Gaidano G, Mauro FR, et al. What are the attributes prioritized in the choice of therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia? A patient-physician cross-matching analysis of a discrete choice experiment. Hemasphere. 2022;6(9):e771. doi:10.1097/HS9.0000000000000771
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez JM. A guide to measuring and interpreting attribute importance. Patient. 2019;12(3):287–295. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00360-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT). Statistiche Istat [22 Feb 2024]. Available from: http://dati.istat.it/.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson FK, Forconi F, Kipps TJ. Exploring the pathways to chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2021;138(10):827–835. doi:10.1182/blood.2020010029
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shanafelt TD, Borah BJ, Finnes HD, et al. Impact of ibrutinib and idelalisib on the pharmaceutical cost of treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia at the individual and societal levels. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11(3):252–258. doi:10.1200/JOP.2014.002469
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolley K, Goad C, Yi Y, et al. Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(5):749–759. doi:10.1007/s10198-012-0419-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles EL, Becker F, Ternent L, et al. Acceptability of financial incentives for health behaviours: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0157403. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(10):951–965. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0181-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonker MF, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob EW, et al. Effect of level overlap and color coding on attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2018;21(7):767–771. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lagarde M. Investigating attribute non-attendance and its consequences in choice experiments with latent class models. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):554–567. doi:10.1002/hec.2824
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heidenreich S, Watson V, Ryan M, et al. Decision heuristic or preference? Attribute non-attendance in discrete choice problems. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):157–171. doi:10.1002/hec.3524
   PubMedGoogle Scholar