| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Falahee, Marie, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment preferences for preventive interventions for rheumatoid arthritis : protocol of a mixed methods case study for the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:4, s. e045851-e045851
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg (92_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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Simons, Gwenda, et al.
(författare)
-
Acceptable risks of treatments to prevent rheumatoid arthritis among first-degree relatives: demographic and psychological predictors of risk tolerance
- 2022
-
Ingår i: RMD Open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 8:2, s. e002593-e002593
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To quantify tolerance to risks of preventive treatments among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods Preventive treatments for RA are under investigation. In a preference survey, adult FDRs assumed a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 years and made choices between no treatment and hypothetical preventive treatment options with a fixed level of benefit (reduction in chance of developing RA from 60% to 20%) and varying levels of risks. Using a probabilistic threshold technique, each risk was increased or decreased until participants switched their choice. Perceived risk of RA, health literacy, numeracy, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-General were also assessed. Maximum acceptable risk (MAR) was summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between MARs and participants’ characteristics were assessed using interval regression with effects coding.Results 289 FDRs (80 male) responded. The mean MAR for a 40% reduction in chance of developing RA was 29.08% risk of mild side effects, 9.09% risk of serious infection and 0.85% risk of a serious side effect. Participants aged over 60 years were less tolerant of serious infection risk (mean MAR ±2.06%) than younger participants. Risk of mild side effects was less acceptable to participants who perceived higher likelihood of developing RA (mean MAR ±3.34%) and more acceptable to those believing that if they developed RA it would last for a long time (mean MAR ±4.44%).Conclusions Age, perceived chance of developing RA and perceived duration of RA were associated with tolerance to some risks of preventive RA therapy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Simons, Gwenda, et al.
(författare)
-
Preferences for preventive treatments for rheumatoid arthritis : discrete choice survey in the UK, Germany and Romania
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Rheumatology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0324 .- 1462-0332. ; 62:2, s. 596-605
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for preventive therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across three countries.METHODS: A web-based survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to adults recruited via survey panels in the UK, Germany and Romania. Participants were asked to assume they were experiencing arthralgia and had a 60% chance of developing RA in the next 2 years and completed 15 choices between no treatment and two hypothetical preventive treatments. Treatments were defined by six attributes (effectiveness, risks and frequency/route of administration) with varying levels. Participants also completed a choice task with fixed profiles reflecting subjective estimates of candidate preventive treatments. Latent class models (LCMs) were conducted and the relative importance of attributes, benefit-risk trade-offs and predicted treatment uptake was subsequently calculated.RESULTS: Completed surveys from 2959 participants were included in the analysis. Most participants preferred treatment over no treatment and valued treatment effectiveness to reduce risk more than other attributes. A five-class LCM best fitted the data. Country, perceived risk of RA, health literacy and numeracy predicted class membership probability. Overall, the maximum acceptable risk for a 40% reduction in the chance of getting RA (60% to 20%) was 21.7%, 19.1% and 2.2% for mild side effects, serious infection and serious side effects, respectively. Predicted uptake of profiles reflecting candidate prevention therapies differed across classes.CONCLUSION: Effective preventive pharmacological treatments for RA were acceptable to most participants. The relative importance of treatment attributes and likely uptake of fixed treatment profiles were predicted by participant characteristics.
|
|
| 5. |
- Veldwijk, Jorien, et al.
(författare)
-
Maximum Acceptable Risk Estimation Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Probabilistic Threshold Technique
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Patient. - : Springer. - 1178-1653 .- 1178-1661.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveWe aimed to empirically compare maximum acceptable risk results estimated using both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT).MethodsMembers 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.ResultsMaximum 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).ConclusionsMaximum 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.
|
|
