Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia in the United Kingdom: A Discrete Choice Experiment

References

• Okikiolu J, Dillon R, Raj K. Acute leukaemia. Medicine. 2021;49(5):274–281. doi:10.1016/j.mpmed.2021.02.004
   Google Scholar
• Terwilliger T, Abdul-Hay M. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a comprehensive review and 2017 update. Blood Cancer J. 2017;7(6):e577. doi:10.1038/bcj.2017.53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döhner H, Weisdorf DJ, Bloomfield CD. Acute Myeloid Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(12):1136–1152. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1406184
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyer SG, Elias L, Stanchina M, Watts J. The treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia in 2023: paradigm, advances, and future directions. Front Oncol. 2023;12:1062524. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1062524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shephard EA, Neal RD, Rose PW, Walter FM, Hamilton W. Symptoms of adult chronic and acute leukaemia before diagnosis: large primary care case-control studies using electronic records. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(644):e182–e188. doi:10.3399/bjgp16X683989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pemberton-Whiteley Z, Nier S, Geissler J, et al. Understanding Quality of Life in Patients With Acute Leukemia, a Global Survey. J Patient Centered Research Rev. 2023;10(1):21–30. doi:10.17294/2330-0698.1951
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulou C, Johnston B, Themessl-Huber M. The experience of acute leukaemia in adult patients: a qualitative thematic synthesis. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(5):640–648. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2013.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thol F, Ganser A. Treatment of Relapsed Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2020;21(8):66. doi:10.1007/s11864-020-00765-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul S, Rausch CR, Nasnas PE, Kantarjian H, Jabbour EJ. Treatment of relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2019;17(3):166–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raetz EA, Bhatla T. Where do we stand in the treatment of relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia? Hematology. 2012;2012(1):129–136. doi:10.1182/asheducation.V2012.1.129.3800156
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pehlivan KC, Duncan BB, Lee DW. CAR-T Cell Therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: transforming the Treatment of Relapsed and Refractory Disease. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2018;13(5):396–406. doi:10.1007/s11899-018-0470-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens R, Huys I, van Overbeeke E, et al. Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):189. doi:10.1186/s12911-019-0875-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens R, Russo S, Van Overbeeke E, et al. Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle: what do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA. Patient. 2019;12(5):513–526. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00367-w
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, et al. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discovery Today. 2019;24(1):57–68. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Overbeeke E, Janssens R, Whichello C, et al. Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: a Multi-Method Study. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1395. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01395
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discovery Today. 2019;24(7):1324–1331. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mott DJ, Najafzadeh M. Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decision-making? A case study using anticoagulant therapy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(1):33–39. doi:10.1586/14737167.2016.1115722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mott DJ. Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: is HTA Falling Behind? Patient. 2018;11(3):249–252. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FDA. 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; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Bouvy JC, Cowie L, Lovett R, Morrison D, Livingstone H, Crabb N. Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: a NICE Perspective. Patient. 2020;13(2):145–149. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00408-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Johnson FR. Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in European Health Technology Assessments: the Role of Health Preference Research. Patient. 2017;10(4):527–530. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0249-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Overbeeke E, Forrester V, Simoens S, Huys I. Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives. Patient. 2021;14(1):119–128. doi:10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richardson DR, Oakes AH, Crossnohere NL, et al. Prioritizing the worries of AML patients: quantifying patient experience using best-worst scaling. Psychooncology. 2021;30(7):1104–1111. doi:10.1002/pon.5652
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson DR, Crossnohere NL, Seo J, et al. Age at Diagnosis and Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in AML: a Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Meaningful Benefits. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(5):942–948. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-1277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashaye A, Thomas C, Dalal M, et al. Patient preferences for frontline therapies for Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a discrete choice experiment. Future Oncol. 2022;18(17):2075–2085. doi:10.2217/fon-2022-0082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saini L, Griffin JD, Pandya BJ, et al. Patient and Physician Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Maintenance Treatments Following Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. PPA. 2023;17:2805–2819. doi:10.2147/PPA.S421871
   Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. 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
• Hollin IL, Craig BM, Coast J, et al. Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: guidelines for Authors and Reviewers. Patient. 2020;13(1):121–136. doi:10.1007/s40271-019-00401-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments: a Systematic Review and Survey of Authors. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313. doi:10.1177/0272989X16683934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pemberton-Whiteley Z, Nier S, Mott D, Skedgel C, Hitch J. Understanding Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia Patients’ Treatment Preferences: insights from Qualitative Research. Blood. 2023;142(Supplement 1):3730. doi:10.1182/blood-2023-172871
   Google Scholar
• Cook NS, Nagar SH, Jain A, et al. Understanding Patient Preferences and Unmet Needs in Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH): insights from a Qualitative Online Bulletin Board Study. Adv Ther. 2019;36(2):478–491. doi:10.1007/s12325-018-0856-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook NS, Tripathi P, Weiss O, Walda S, George AT, Bushell A. Patient Needs, Perceptions, and Attitudinal Drivers Associated with Obesity: a Qualitative Online Bulletin Board Study. Adv Ther. 2019;36(4):842–857. doi:10.1007/s12325-019-00900-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikenwilo D, Heidenreich S, Ryan M, Mankowski C, Nazir J, Watson V. The Best of Both Worlds: an Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Patient. 2018;11(1):55–67. doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0263-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18(3):321–336. doi:10.1002/hec.1369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied Choice Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Vass C, Boeri M, Karim S, et al. Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Discrete-Choice Experiments: an ISPOR Special Interest Group Report. Value Health. 2022;25(5):685–694. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mott DJ, Chami N, Tervonen T. Reporting Quality of Marginal Rates of Substitution in Discrete Choice Experiments that Elicit Patient Preferences. Value Health. 2020;21(5):979–984.
   Google Scholar
• Mott DJ, Ternent L, Vale L. Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention. Eur J Health Econ. 2023;24(3):413–423. doi:10.1007/s10198-022-01482-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fifer S, Galinsky J, Richard S. Myeloma Patient Value Mapping: a Discrete Choice Experiment on Myeloma Treatment Preferences in the UK. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1283–1293. doi:10.2147/PPA.S259612
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar