The evolving role of patient preference studies in health-care decision-making, from clinical drug development to clinical care management

References

• Irony T, Ho M, Christopher S, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into medical device benefit-risk assessments. Stat Biopharm Res. 2016;8(3):230–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute About Us. [ Cited 2018 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.pcori.org/about-us
   Google Scholar
• Smith SG, Pandit A, Rush SR, et al. The association between patient activation and accessing online health information: results from a national survey of US adults. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):3262–3273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CMS initiatives to test shared decision making. Medscape medical news. [Cited 2018 Jul 24]. Available from: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/873198
   Google Scholar
• Perfetto EM, Burke L, Oehrlein EM, et al. Patient-focused drug development: a new direction for collaboration. Med Care. 2015;53(1):9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.R.34 – 114th congress (2015–2016): 21st century cures act. [Cited 2018 Jul 24]. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34/
   Google Scholar
• Kluetz PG, O’Connor DJ, Soltys K. Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):e267–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation adn Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.  [Cited 2019 May 1]. Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and representative input. Guidance for industry. Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders. FDA Draft Guidance. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Patient-Focused-Drug-Development---Collecting-Comprehensive-and-Representative-Input.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Medical device innovation consortium (MDIC) patient centered benefit-risk project report: a framework for incorporating information on patient preferences regarding benefit and risk into regulatory assessments of new medical technology. [Cited 2018 Jul 24]. Available from: http://mdic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MDIC_PCBR_Framework_Proof5_Web.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Furlong P, Bridges JF, Charnas L, et al. How a patient advocacy group developed the first proposed draft guidance document for industry for submission to the US food and drug administration. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [Cited 2019 May 1]. Patient preference information–voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling. Guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. FDA Guidance; 2016. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/92593/download
   Google Scholar
• Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege HL, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(5):548–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for quality and efficiency in healthcare background: what are patient preferences? [Cited 2018 Jul 24]. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/en/methods/basic-principles/background-what-are-patient-preferences.3757.html
   Google Scholar
• Cancer research UK NICE given grant to research patient preference. [Cited 2018 Jul 24]. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/news-report/2016-06-02-nice-given-grant-to-research-patient-preference
   Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public–private project. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2017 Jun;10(3):263-266.
   Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Fairchild AO, Johnson FR. Quantifying benefit–risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitehead J, Pattanayak S, Van Houtven G, et al. Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J Econ Surv. 2008;22(5):872–908.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjaer T. A review of the discrete choice experiment-with emphasis on its application in healthcare. Denmark: Syddansk Universitet; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Ozdemir S. Improving the validity of stated-preference data in health research: the potential of the time-to-think approach. Patient - Patient-Centered. Outcomes Res. 2015;8(3):247–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value healthcare programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flynn TN. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):259–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung KL, Wijnen BF, Hollin IL, et al. Using best–worst scaling to investigate preferences in healthcare. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(12):1195–1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, et al. Health preference research: an overview. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10(4):507–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempf L, Goldsmith JC, Temple R. Challenges of developing and conducting clinical trials in rare disorders. Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176(4):773–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, et al. Role of clinical trial participation in cancer research: barriers, evidence, and strategies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:185–198. American Society of Clinical Oncology.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fraenkel L. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decision making. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1_suppl):80S–93S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. [Cited 2019 May 1]. Use of real-world evidence to support regulatory decision making for medical devices. Guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. FDA Guidance; 2017. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/99447/download
   Google Scholar
• Mullins CD, Abdulhalim AM, Lavallee DC. Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1587–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, et al. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, et al. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). [Cited 2019 May 1]. Duchenne muscular dystrophy and related dystrophinopathies: developing drugs for treatment. Guidance for industry. FDA Guidance; 2015. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/92233/download
   Google Scholar
• Hollin IL, Young C, Hanson C, et al. Developing a patient-centered benefit-risk survey: a community-engaged process. Value Health. 2016;19(6):751–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA weighs patients’ risk tolerance in approving obesity device. [Cited 2018 Jul 25]. Available from: https://pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/PS077790/FDA-Weighs-Patients-Risk-Tolerance-in-Approving-Obesity-Device
   Google Scholar
• Key considerations for developing & integrating patient perspectives in drug development: examination of the Duchenne case study. [Cited 2018 Jul 25]. Available from: https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/BIO_PPMD_Paper_2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Seo J, Smith BD, Estey E, et al. Developing an instrument to assess patient preferences for benefits and risks of treating acute myeloid leukemia to promote patient-focused drug development. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018 Dec;34(12):2031-2039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Janssen EM, Ferris A, et al. Project Transform: engaging patient advocates to share their perspectives on improving research, treatment and policy. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(10):1755–1762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bringing the patient voice into drug development. [Cited 2018 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.lls.org/blog/message-to-the-fda-incorporate-patient-voice-into-drug-development
   Google Scholar
• Paquin R, Fischer F, Mansfield C, et al. Priorities when deciding on participation in early-phase gene therapy trials for duchenne muscular dystrophy: a best–worst scaling experiment in adult patients and caregivers. Orphanet. Submitted 2018 November 26 (Under Review).
   Google Scholar
• Peay H, Fischer H, Mange H, et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ maximum acceptable risk of death for non-curative gene therapy to treat duchenne muscular dystrophy. Value Health. Submitted 2018 November 15 (Under Review).
   Google Scholar
• Hollin IL, Peay H, Fischer R, et al. Engaging patients and caregivers in prioritizing symptoms impacting quality of life for duchenne and becker muscular dystrophy. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(9):2261–2273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health. 2007;10:S125–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, et al. Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-lite using conjoint analysis. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(5):701–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pleil A, Bushmakin AG, Shields A, et al. Determining the magnitude of a detectable and a relevant treatment benefit in aesthetic medicine using a photoguide and the internet. Value Health. 2013;16(7):A603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patient-centered clinical trial design workshop. From p-values to patient values: MDIC to reveal patient-generated p-values from Parkinson’s patient preference study. [Cited 2018 May 18]. Available from: http://mdic.org/spi/pcor/workshop/
   Google Scholar
• McNamara M, Westhead H, Gross H, et al. Discrete choice exercise to evaluate factors driving growth hormone deficient (ghd) patient preferences for injection and injection device features. Value Health. 2018;21:S139–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, et al. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose‐lowering agents. Diabet Med. 2009;26(4):416–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, Veldwijk J, Jonker M, et al. The impact of vaccination and patient characteristics on influenza vaccination uptake of elderly people: A discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2018;36(11):1467–1476.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Fairchild AO, Johnson FR. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Testing preference elicitation methods in clinical case studies. [Cited 2018 Jul 30]. Available from: https://www.imi-prefer.eu/about/studies/
   Google Scholar
• A lifecycle approach to FDA’s structured benefit-risk assessment framework. [Cited 2018 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/files/FDA_STBRA_WP.pdf
   Google Scholar
• FDA patient-focused drug development guidance series for enhancing the incorporation of the patient’s voice in medical product development and regulatory decision making. [Cited 2018 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm610279.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–2993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European medicines agency benefit-risk methodology project. [Cited 2018 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/report/benefit-risk-methodology-project_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European medicines agency guidance document on the content of the rapporteur day critical assessment report. [Cited 2018 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/d80-assessment-report-overview-guidance-rev1017_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European medicines agency benefit-risk methodology project update on work package 5: effects table pilot (Phase I). [Cited 2018 Dec 12] Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/report/benefit-risk-methodology-project-update-work-package-5-effects-table-pilot-phase-i_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European medicines agency shaping regulatory science to 2025. [Cited 2018 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/shaping-regulatory-science-2025
   Google Scholar
• Rummel M, Kim TM, Aversa F, et al. Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab). Ann Oncol. 2016;28(4):836–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single A, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Scott AM, Wale JL. HTAi patient and citizen involvement in HTA interest group, patient involvement and education working group. Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Bridges JF, Bethge S, et al. Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18(2):155–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Sadler A. The probabilistic efficiency frontier: a framework for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany put into practice for hepatitis C treatment options. Value Health. 2017;20(2):266–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: is HTA falling behind? Patient - Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2018;11(3):249–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Zouraq IA, Chevrou-Severac H, et al. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(1):11–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Brouwer WB. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landfeldt E, Lindgren P, Bell C, et al. Health‐related quality of life in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a multinational, cross‐sectional study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(5):508–515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Beusterien K, Heres S, et al. Quantifying the treatment goals of people recently diagnosed with schizophrenia using best–worst scaling. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:63–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Hopkins RH Jr, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):378–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoenborn NL, Janssen EM, Boyd CM, et al. Preferred clinician communication about stopping cancer screening among older US adults: results from a national survey. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(8):1123–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lely AJ, Gomez R, Pleil A, et al. Development of ACRODAT, a new software medical device to assess disease activity in patients with acromegaly. Pituitary. 2017;20(6):692–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson Y, Flood E, Rhoten S, et al. AcroVoice: eliciting the patients’ perspective on acromegaly disease activity. Pituitary. 2019;22(1):62–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice expesriments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA Voice. How patient preferences contribute to regulatory decisions for medical devices. [Cited 2018 Jul 25]. Available from: https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/tag/patient-preference-initiative/
   Google Scholar
• Streufert B, Reed SD, Orlando LA, et al. Understanding preferences for treatment after hypothetical first-time anterior shoulder dislocation: surveying an online panel utilizing a novel shared decision making tool. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5:3.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Peters E, Charpentier P, et al. Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(7):977–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar