| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Janssens, Rosanne, et al.
(författare)
-
How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? : Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Pharmacology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1663-9812. ; 14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making.Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022.Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions.Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.
|
|
| 3. |
- Janssens, Rosanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Life Cycle : What do Stakeholders Think? Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews in Europe and the USA
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Patient. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1178-1653 .- 1178-1661. ; 12:5, s. 513-526
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundPatient 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.ObjectiveThis study aimed to characterize stakeholders’ attitudes, needs, and concerns with respect to PP in decision making along the medical product lifecycle.MethodsSemi-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.ResultsInterviewees 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.ConclusionsDespite 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Jimenez-Moreno, Aura Cecilia, et al.
(författare)
-
A study protocol for quantifying patient preferences in neuromuscular disorders: a case study of the IMI PREFER Project [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Wellcome Open Research. - : F1000 Research Ltd. - 2398-502X. ; 5:253
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Jones, Benedict C, et al.
(författare)
-
To which world regions does the valence-dominance model of social perception apply?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-3374. ; 5:1, s. 159-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 5 November 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611443.v1 .
|
|
| 6. |
- Soekhai, Vikas, et al.
(författare)
-
Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Choice Modelling. - : Elsevier BV. - 1755-5345. ; 41, s. 100325-100325
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper studies the performance of case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS) when it is applied to a mix of positive and negative attributes, for example in studying treatments characterized by both benefits and harms. Intuitively, such a mix of positive and negative attributes leads to dominance. We analytically show that dominance leads to infinitely large differences between the parameter estimates for the positive versus negative attributes. The results from a simulation study confirm our analytical results: parameter values of the attributes could not be accurately recovered. When only a single positive attribute was used, even the relative ordering of the attribute level preferences was not identified. As a result, case 2 BWS can be used to elicit preferences if only good (positive) or only bad (negative) attributes are included in the choice tasks, but not for both since dominance will impact parameter estimation and therefore decision-making.
|
|
| 7. |
- van Overbeeke, Eline, et al.
(författare)
-
Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle : a literature review
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Drug Discovery Today. - : Elsevier BV. - 1359-6446 .- 1878-5832. ; 24:1, s. 57-68
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
