Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for new medicines in rare disease patients and caregivers

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Morel, T ^a   Ayme S ^b   Cassiman, D ^c   Simoens, S ^a   Morgan, M ^d   Vandebroek, M ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b INSERM   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e Katholieke Universiteit Leuven   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Benefit risk; Caregivers; Disability; Discrete choice experiment; Drug development; Patient centered outcomes; Patient reported outcomes; Patients; Preferences; Qualitative survey; Rare diseases; Risk tolerance; Trade offs; Values

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIKERT SCALE; LIMIT OF QUANTITATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SAFETY; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RARE DISEASE; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; DECISION MAKING; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; RARE DISEASES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CAREGIVERS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RARE DISEASES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84971006462     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17501172     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-016-0444-9     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Eichler HG, Abadie E, Baker M, Rasi G. Fifty years after thalidomide; what role for drug regulators? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74:731-3.
2. Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Brasseur D, Breckenridge A, Leufkens H, Raine J, et al. The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:907-16.
3. Chakradhar S. Training on trials: patients taught the language of drug development. Nat Med. 2015;21:209-10.
4. Pushparajah DS, Geissler J, Westergaard N. EUPATI: collaboration between patients, academia and industry to champion the infromed patient in the research and development of medicines. J Med DevSci. 2015;1:74-80.
5. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making - pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780-1.
6. Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.
7. Minvielle E, Waelli M, Sicotte C, Kimberly JR. Managing customization in health care: a framework derived from the services sector literature. Health Policy. 2014;117:216-27.
8. Eaton S, Collins A, Coulter A, Elwyn G, Grazin N, Roberts S. Putting patients first. BMJ. 2012;344:e2006.
9. Coulter A, Collins A. Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me. London: The King's Fund; 2011.
10. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi). Completing a Patient Group Submission Template: Guidance for Patient Organisations for Health Technology Assessment and Appraisal of Medicines. 2015. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi).
11. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Road map to 2015. The european medicines Agency's contribution to science, medicines and health. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2010.
12. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Incorporating patients' views during evaluation of benefit-risk by the EMA scientific committees. EMA/413422/2013. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2014.
13. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pilot phase to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings. EMA/372554/2014. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2014.
14. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Final CHMP work programme for 2011-2013. EMA/CHMP/65166/2011. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2011.
15. US Department of Health and Human Services FaDAF. Structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making. Draft PDUFA V implementation plan. Washington: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2013. 16-1-2015.
16. US Department of Health and Human Services FaDAF. Prescription drug user Fee Act patient-focused drug development; announcement of disease areas for meetings conducted in fiscal years 2013-2015. Vol. 78, No. 70. 11-4-2013. Washington: Federal Register; 2015.
17. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Regulatory and methodological standards to improve benefit-risk evaluation of medicines. Workshop report, EMA/141854/2014. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2014.
18. Genetic Alliance UK. New medicines for serious conditions: weighing the risks and benefits. The verdict of a jury of patients. London: Genetic Alliance UK; 2012. 16-1-2015.
19. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. The Duchenne community imperatives for the guidance for industry on Duchenne muscular dystrophy: developing drugs for treatment over the spectrum of disease. Hackensak: Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy; 2014. 16-1-2015.
20. US Department of Health and Human Services FaDAF. Report: complex issues in developing drugs and biological products for rare diseases and accelerating the development of therapies for pediatric rare diseases, including strategic plan: accelerating the development of therapies for pediatric rare diseases. Washington: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2014.
21. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145-72.
22. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14:403-13.
23. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55-64.
24. Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health - How are studies being designed and reported?: an update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3:249-56.
25. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-3.
26. Johnson FR. Why not ask?: measuring patient preferences for healthcare decision making. Patient. 2008;1:245-8.
27. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoecon. 2008;26:661-77.
28. Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient. 2008;1:273-82.
29. Harrison M, Rigby D, Vass C, Flynn T, Louviere J, Payne K. Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient. 2014;7:151-70.
30. Hauber AB, Fairchild AO, Reed J. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:319-29.
31. Train K. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
32. Hensher DA, Greene WH. The Mixed Logit model: the state of practice. Transportation. 2003;30:133-76.
33. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.
34. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
35. Hensher DA, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
36. Pickard AS, Knight SJ. Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Med Care. 2005;43:493-9.
37. Ustun TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J, et al. Developing the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:815-23.
38. Ustun TB, Kastanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability. Manual for the WHO disability assessment schedule. WHODAS 2.0. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2010.
39. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM. Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations. Transp Res B. 2010;44:720-34.
40. Kessels R, Goos P, Vandebroek M. A comparison of criteria to design efficient choice experiments. J Mark Res. 2006;43:419.
41. Orme J. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research Publishers LLC; 2006.
42. Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M. Efficient conjoint choice designs in the presence of respondent heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2009;28:122-35.
43. Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M. Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity. Int J Res Mark. 2011;28:378-88.
44. Yu J, Goos P, Vandebroek M. A comparison of different Bayesian design criteria for setting up stated preference studies. Transp Res B. 2012;46:789-807.
45. Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M, Von KM, Ustun TB. Normative data for the 12 item WHO disability assessment schedule 2.0. PLoS One. 2009;4:e8343.
46. Kakkis ED, O'Donovan M, Cox G, Hayes M, Goodsaid F, Tandon PK, et al. Recommendations for the development of rare disease drugs using the accelerated approval pathway and for qualifying biomarkers as primary endpoints. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:16.
47. Schork NJ. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature. 2015;520:609-11.
48. US Department of Health and Human Services FaDAF. Paving the Way for Personalized Medicine. FDA's Role in a New Era of Medical Product Development. Washington D.C., USA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013.
49. National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD). Letter to the U.S. Senate HELP Committee in support of the Advancing Targeted Therapies for Rare Diseases Act. 2015.
50. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: Berkeley: University of California Press; 1982.
51. Krimsky S, Golding D. Social theories of risk. Westport: Praeger-Greenwood; 1992.
52. Douglas M. Risk as a forensic resource. Daedalus Proc Am Acad Arts Sci. 1990;119:1-16.
53. Kesselheim AS, McGraw S, Thompson L, O'Keefe K, Gagne JJ. Development and use of new therapeutics for rare diseases: views from patients, caregivers, and advocates. Patient. 2015;8:75-84.
54. Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JF. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36:624-37.
55. Woodcock J. PDUFA V Clinical Outcome Assessments Public workshop. 2015.
56. Walton MK, Powers III JH, Hobart J, Patrick D, Marquis P, Vamvakas S, et al. Clinical outcome assessments: conceptual foundation-report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment - emerging good practices for outcomes research task force. Value Health. 2015;18:741-52.
57. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312:1513-4.
58. Bartlett SJ, Barnes T, McIvor RA. Integrating patients into meaningful real-world research. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11 Suppl 2:S112-7.
59. International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC). Preparatory Document for Workshop on Patient-Centred Outcome Measures Initiatives in the Field of Rare Diseases. 2-10-2015.