Discrete choice experiments: An overview of experience to date in haemophilia

John Spoors; Alec Miners; John Cairns

doi:10.2478/jhp-2022-0006

Abstract

Abstract Background

The patient voice is an important consideration in the availability and choice of pharmaceuticals – however, how to capture this complex area and apply it formally within regulation, health technology assessment and reimbursement remains subject to ongoing debate. Patient preference studies such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are being utilised more frequently in healthcare and it is anticipated that patient preference data will be incorporated more frequently into regulatory submissions moving forward.

Aim

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of DCEs conducted within haemophilia to date and to consider the key issues in response to a rapidly evolving therapeutic pathway.

Methods

A systematic literature search was undertaken via Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE CLASSIC + EMBASE. Abstracts were uploaded and analysed via Rayyan systematic review software. Results: Of 478 records identified from the database searches, 12 full text journal articles met the inclusion criteria with a date range from 2005–2021. There have been two published studies exploring haemophilia patient preferences in relation to gene therapy: one DCE and one utilising a threshold technique. Surveyed audiences included physicians, patients, pharmacists, healthcare professionals and caregivers. 50% of the included studies (n=6) were exclusively conducted in the US, whilst 3 recruited participants across multiple countries. The sample size varied considerably between studies with the total sample size ranging from 30 participants to 505 participants. For the studies involving patients and their caregivers, the mean patient age range was 8.2–41.4 years. There was diversity in (a) the scale of the qualitative work undertaken to support the DCEs, (b) the undertaking of pilots, and (c) how extensively these elements were reported in the included studies. There is a notable trend towards using an online web-based format, with 3 out of 4 DCEs since 2019 utilising this approach. The number of attributes observed per DCE ranged from 5–12 with a median of 6 attributes from the included studies. The number of levels per attribute was relatively consistent (range 2–5) with 2–3 (n=4) and 2–4 levels (n=4) being utilised most frequently.

Conclusion

Patient preferences and the methods for capturing these are likely to be subject to ongoing debate as the haemophilia care pathway evolves to offer more therapeutic options with a range of risks and benefits. Whilst techniques such as DCE are effective at quantifying patient preferences, they tell us little about the reasons driving these decisions and the likelihood that they will change in response to temporal or external factors. DCEs could be particularly useful for estimating the uptake of new products and assessing potential budget impact. Accelerated and reformed regulatory processes are likely to increase demand for patient preference studies. There is therefore an increased requirement to ensure that patient advocacy groups (PAGs) are resourced and have the expertise to support these studies alongside other research commitments, and that manufacturers consider collaborative approaches when formally capturing patient preferences.

As more therapeutic options become available in haemophilia care, discrete choice experiment may be a useful means of gauging patient preference

Article

View Full Article

References

1. Livingstone H, Verdiel V, Crosbie H, Upadhyaya S, Harris K, Thomas L. Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2021; 37(1), E33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320002214.
2. Wale JL, Sullivan M. Exploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2020; 36(3): 197–203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320000240.
3. 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: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0.
4. United States Government. An Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes. Public Law 114–255. 114th Congress. H.R. 34. 2016. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022).
5. Gabay M. 21st century cures act. Hosp Pharm 2017; 52(4): 264–265. doi: https://doi.org/10.1310/hpj5204-264.
6. Gerstein HC, McMurray J, Holman RR. Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy. Lancet 2019; 393(10168):210–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32840-X.
7. Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: Is HTA falling behind? Patient 2018; 11(3): 249–252. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9.
8. EMA. PRIME: priority medicines [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/prime-priority-medicines (accessed 2 July 2020).
9. FDA. Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review (accessed 2 July 2020).
10. MHRA. Guidance on Project Orbis [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-project-orbis (accessed 14 March 2022).
11. MHRA. Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovative-licensing-and-access-pathway (accessed 14 March 2022).
12. Spoors J, Miners A, Cairns J, et al. Payer and implementation challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). BioDrugs 2021; 35: 1–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-020-00457-4.
13. MDIC. MDIC Patient-Centred Benefit-Risk Project Report: A Framework for Incorporating Information on Patient Preferences Regarding Benefit and Risk into Regulatory Assessments of New Medical Technology. 2015. Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/95591/download (accessed 14 March 2022).
14. Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A Framework for Incorporating Patient Preferences Regarding Benefits and Risks into Regulatory Assessment of Medical Technologies. Value Health 2016; 19(6): 746–750. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019.
15. Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do)... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009; 151–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn047.
16. Brown TM, Pashos CL, Joshi AV., Lee WC. The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: Preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia 2011; 17(3): 476–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02401.x.
17. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(9): 883–902. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.
18. 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: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2.
19. Vass C, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: Are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics 2017; 35: 859–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0.
20. BMJ Best Practice. Haemophilia [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/468 (accessed 30 July 2020).
21. National Hemophilia Foundation. History of Bleeding Disorders [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.hemophilia.org/Bleeding-Disorders/History-of-Bleeding-Disorders (accessed 30 July 2020).
22. Specialist Pharmacy Service. SPS Horizon Scanning Service [Internet]. Available from: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/sps-horizon-scanning-service/ (accessed 6 January 2022).
23. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis – Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014; 17(1): 5–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291.
24. Terris-Prestholt F, Quaife M, Vickerman P. Parameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2016; 25 (Suppl 1): 116–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3297.
25. Quaife M, Terris-Prestholt F, Di Tanna GL, Vickerman P. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. Eur J Heal Econ 2018; 19(8): 1053–1066. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0954-6.
26. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5(1): 210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
27. Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, et al. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2005; 11(6): 589–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x.
28. Lee WC, Joshi AV, Woolford S, et al. Physicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2008; 454–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01656.x.
29. Scalone L, Mantovani LG, Borghetti F, von Mackensen S, Gringeri A. Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: Results from the COHIBA Study. Haemophilia 2009; 15(2): 473–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01926.x.
30. Mohamed AF, Epstein JD, Li-Mcleod JM. Patient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments. Haemophilia 2011; 17(2): 209–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02411.x.
31. Gelhorn H, Merikle E, Krishnan S, Nemes L, Leissinger C, Valentino L. Physician preferences for medication attributes for the prophylactic treatment of patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors to factor VIII. Haemophilia 2013; 19(1): 119–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.12011.
32. Chaugule SS, Hay JW, Young G. Understanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015; 9: 1623–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S92985.
33. Lock J, de Bekker-Grob EW, Urhan G, et al. Facilitating the implementation of pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of prophylaxis in haemophilia care by discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2016; 22(1): e1–e10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.12851.
34. Fifer S, Kerr AM, Parken C, Hamrosi K, Eid S. Treatment preferences in people with haemophilia A or caregivers of people with haemophilia A: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2020; 26(Suppl 5): 30–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14037.
35. Su J, Li N, Joshi N, et al. Patient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia A treatments: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2020; 26(6): e291–e299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14137.
36. Park YS, Hwang TJ, Cho GJ, et al. Patients’ and parents’ satisfaction with, and preference for, haemophilia A treatments: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study. Haemophilia 2021; 27(4): 563–573. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14304.
37. Witkop M, Morgan G, O’Hara J, et al. Patient preferences and priorities for haemophilia gene therapy in the US: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2021; 27(5): 769–782. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14383.
38. Tegenge MA, Belov A, Moncur M, Forshee R, Irony T. Comparing clotting factors attributes across different methods of preference elicitation in haemophilia patients. Haemophilia 2020; 26(5): 817–825. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14119.
39. Botteman M, Martin S, Ng X, Joshi N, Shah R. PSY201 A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in hemophilia. Value Health 2018; 21 (Suppl 3): S470. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2775.
40. Morgan G, Martin A, Mighiu C, et al. PMU95 A systematic literature review of preference studies in haemophilia. Value Health 2020; 23 (Suppl 2): S619. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020-08-1307.
41. Sutphin J, Bartelt-Hofer J, Leach C, et al. Treatment preferences in hemophilia: results from a targeted literature review. Poster presented at the Virtual EAHAD 2021 Congress; February 3, 2021. [abstract] Haemophilia. 2021 Feb; 27(S2):134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14236.
42. van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, et al. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey. Haemophilia 2021; 27(6): 957–966. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14401.
43. Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today 2019; 24(7): 1324–1331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001.
44. van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, Goldman M, Simoens S, Huys I. Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol development for the PAVING Study in hemophilia. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 8: 595797. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.595797.
45. Vass C, Davison NJ, Stichele G Vander, Payne K. A picture is worth a thousand words: The role of survey training materials in stated-preference studies. Patient 2020; 13: 163–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w.
46. Lim SL, Yang JC, Ehrisman J, Havrilesky LJ, Reed SD. Are videos or text better for describing attributes in stated-preference surveys? Patient 2020; 13(4): 401–408. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9.
47. Wang X, Cheng Z. Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest 2020; 158(1S): S65–S71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012.
48. Veldwijk J, Johansson JV, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob EW. Mimicking real-life decision making in health: Allowing respondents time to think in a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2020; 23(7): 945–952. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014.
49. Liao Q, Lam WWT, Wong CKH, Lam C, Chen J, Fielding R. The relative effects of determinants on Chinese adults’ decision for influenza vaccination choice: What is the effect of priming? Vaccine 2019; 37(30):4124–4132. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.072.
50. Infected Blood Inquiry [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 8 September 2021).
51. Smith LE, Sim J, Amlôt R, et al. Side-effect expectations from COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS – wave 2). J Psychosom Res 2021;152: 110679. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110679.

PDF Download

Download PDF

Open in full-page viewer

Authors

John Spoors

john.spoors@lshtm.ac.uk

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK ; NHS England and NHS Improvement Medicines Analysis Team, UK
Alec Miners

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
John Cairns

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK