Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to 0401 2 Ananda Plate - Patient Preferences(20)

Advertisement

More from Workgroup of European Cancer Patient Advocacy Networks(20)

Advertisement

0401 2 Ananda Plate - Patient Preferences

  1. Patient preferences Ananda Plate CEO, Myeloma Patients Europe Chair, WECAN
  2. Some choices are tougher than others… 09/07/2019 2
  3. Unattractive choices/trade-offs are sometimes the only chance for a patient to survive, live longer or die a less awful death 09/07/2019 3 The bad The uglyThe unknown
  4. Patient preference studies are important for us as advocates because they enable us to influence key health system decisions in the interest of patients Although it is still very limited and doesn’t happen in a systematic way, there is an increasing interest in incorporating patient preferences into decision making processes. Therefore, we as advocates need to understand:  What patient preference studies are  What we can achieve for our patients through them  How we can develop them  How and when in the process we can have the highest impact, where we need it the most 09/07/2019 4
  5. Each of the players has own objectives, an own agenda and very different risk attitudes  Regulators  safety, efficacy, market authorisation  Payers  societal goals: cost-effectiveness, health care sustainability  Industry and academic researchers  research questions, study design, high-tier publications  Physicians  best clinical outcomes, keeping a customer  Patients  personal goals: living a good life as long as possible 12/07/2019 5 Estimated benefits A Estimatedharms B D E C
  6. Each of the players has own objectives, an own agenda and very different risk attitudes  Regulators  safety, efficacy, market authorisation  Payers  Societal goals: Cost-effectiveness, health care sustainability  Industry and academic researchers  research questions, study design, high-tier publications  Physicians  best clinical outcomes, keeping a customer  Patients  personal goals: living a good life as long as possible 09/07/2019 6 So whose preferences should decision-makers take into account? Estimated benefits A Estimatedharms B D E C
  7. Preferences vary a lot depending on who expresses them In the following example:  Drug A: • 50% of patients will be alive in 3 years • all patients will be dead in 8 years  Drug B: • 85% of patients will be dead in 2 years • 15% patients with long-term survival  From a regulatory perspective, drug A might be better because more patients respond longer  However, some patients may prefer treatment B because of the rare chance of surviving 09/07/2019 7 +++ ++ ++ ++++++ ++ ++++++ ++ ++ + ++ + + ++ ++ + ++++ ++ + ++ + + + + +++++ + + +++ + +++++ ++ +++ + ++ ++ + +++ ++ + ++ ++++ + + + 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 50 100 150 200 Time (months) SurivalProbability A B Slide adapted from Francesco Pignatti
  8. They vary from one stakeholder to another, from one disease to another, and even within one single disease  Needs and preferences have historically been captured in general as “the patient voice”  However, there are clear subgroups within single diseases with very different preferences and risk attitudes  In this example: • Considerable heterogeneity • Severe toxicity ranked higher among younger, working, and looking after dependent family members and who had more frequently experienced severe toxicity 09/07/2019 8 Survey with 560 myeloma patients from the Myeloma UK, replicating the pilot of MPE, MPNE and EMA D. Postmus et al. (2017) The Oncologist Slide adapted from Francesco Pignatti
  9. Unattractive choices are sometimes the only chance for a patient to survive, live longer or die a less awful death 09/07/2019 9 The bad The uglyThe unknown No-one could or should decide on behalf of individual or subgroups of patients, which of these nasty options they prefer!
  10. Patient preferences tell us what certain subgroups of patients value the most when it comes to their treatment  WHAT outcomes of a medical product patients value the most  HOW MUCH these outcomes are valued by patients  DIFFERENCES in patient preferences according to patient characteristics (heterogeneity) 09/07/2019 10 Attributes Levels Slide adapted from Rosanne Janssens
  11. We need to develop studies with other experts to gather valid, reliable, reproduceable and generalizable data on patient preferences 09/07/2019 11 Patient organizationsAcademics Clinicians Decision- makers Can decision-makers in regulators, clinical care, industry and academic research “trust” the results?
  12. Areas of external expertise when developing patient preference studies  Selecting the best methodology • Discrete choice vs. multi-criteria decision-making analysis (MCDA) • Quantitative vs. qualitative analysis vs. both?  Avoiding bias in preference studies  Selecting attributes to measure  Measuring and dealing with preference heterogeneity  Asking questions in the right way  Reducing the cognitive burden of preference surveys  Eligibility criteria  Ensuring a “robust” sample or results  Ethics approval (why, where and how?)  Data analysis, storage and ownership  Peer review and publication Patient organisations increasingly take the lead in developing these type of studies. However, collaborations with academia are very important to ensure scientific rigour and utility 09/07/2019
  13. Our role as advocates…  Provide knowledge of the disease pathway and direct interaction with patients  Work on protocol to make sure it reflects the core questions and what is acceptable to patients • Survey acceptability (length, complexity) • Sensitivity (e.g. survival questions)  Recruit patients from within our membership  Utilise findings for external engagement of patient organisations with industry, regulators, payers and policy-makers  Help involved stakeholders understand how to determine what an acceptable risk is and whether an unknown risk is acceptable 09/07/2019 13 Patient advocacy has a role in helping establish a non- paternalistic framework for patients to express their preferences, ensure that the content is accurate/ appropriate and that the data generated is useful
  14. Our role as advocates…  Provide knowledge of the disease pathway and direct interaction with patients  Work on protocol to make sure it reflects the core questions and what is acceptable to patients • Survey acceptability (length, complexity) • Sensitivity (e.g. survival questions)  Recruit patients from within our membership  Utilise findings for external engagement of patient organisations with industry, regulators, payers and policy-makers  Help involved stakeholders understand how to determine what an acceptable risk is and whether an unknown risk is acceptable 09/07/2019 14 Patient advocacy has a role in helping establish a non- paternalistic framework for patients to express their preferences, ensure that the content is accurate/ appropriate and that the data generated is useful
  15. Stakeholders are obsessed in being able to measure risk but there is little discussion about whether this is really in the interest of patients “For a chance to survive, patients […] prefer an unknown risk to a known risk with insufficient benefit […]” B. Ryll (2019) Nature 09/07/2019 15
  16. Example: IMI PREFER 09/07/2019 16 Methodological objectives  To compare preferences elicited by two different preference methods (DCE vs SW)  To understand how preferences vary with patient characteristics Clinical objectives  To identify and quantify patient-relevant benefit-risk attributes of MM treatments  To quantify the value of benefit-risk attributes of MM treatment Slide adapted from Rosanne Janssens Literature review Focus group discussions Survey To identify patient-relevant benefit-risk attributes • To quantify value of attributes • To compare preferences elicited by two different preference methods • To understand how preferences vary with patient characteristics
  17. Conclusions  Patient Preferences vary from one stakeholder to another, from one disease to another, but also within one single disease, forming sub-groups with preferences that are clearly different  Patients know best what to trade between the bad and the ugly, and whether they prefer an unknown risk to a known unsatisfying outcome • No stakeholder should express patient preferences on their behalf • Data not directly gathered from patients should not have the same weight  Patient preferences are becoming a key element of the decision-making process  Patient advocates need to understand patient preference studies well and have a clear strategy on how to become involved in generating these data 1709/07/2019
  18. Acknowledgements Francesco Pignatti, Rosanne Janssens, Kate Morgan, Ana Vallejo 09/07/2019 18

Editor's Notes

  1. But for cancer patients this looks a bit different. Unattractive choices are sometimes the only chance
  2. Therefore, it is really important that these preferences are captured accurately to inform important health system decisions. Patient preferences are increasingly incorporated by decision-makers. But still not systematic. Therefore, advocates need to understand how it works
  3. Expressing a preference is a value judgement, and therefore it is only natural that every stakeholder has a different preference depending on their objectives and environment
  4. So whose preferences should decision-makers take into account?
  5. Perspectives not only vary from one stakeholder to another, from one disease to another, but also within one disease from one patient or subgroup of patients to another
  6. Patient perspectives are very unique. No other person could or should decide what a patient prefers –not even advocates or carers.
  7. So what do patient preferences actually tell us?
  8. We need to make sure the results have an impact. For this, external expertise might be necessary/useful
  9. Who should set the framework of what patients should decide on Who decides whether a risk is sufficiently clear to ask a patient about their preference Who decides whether choosing a totally unknown risk over a known shitty benefit is a valid choice Who decides whether patients need to be protected against their own “desperation”. And who decides what is a “desperate” choice or an informed and conscious choice Is a desperate choice not a legitimate one when all other options are awful?
  10. DCE: discrete choice experiment SW: Multiple criteria decision analysis swing weighting Increasing the quality of the study protocol: Understanding the clinical context of the disease Identification of patient-relevant attributes Feasibility of qualitative and quantitative method Amount and type of information given to patients Understandability of questions and attributes Organizational: Patient recruitment Identifying clinical partners Increasing the quality of the interpretation of the results: Interpretation of the results (workshop): what do they mean, why are they there? Disseminating study results back to patient community
Advertisement