Patient Perspectives on the Value of Patient Preference Information in Regulatory Decision Making

Background: There is increasing interest in involving patient preferences for benefits and risks in regulatory decision making. Therefore, it is essential to identify patient perspectives regarding the value of patient preference information (PPI). Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore how patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) value the use of PPI in regulatory decision making regarding medical products. Methods: Regulators and patients with RA were interviewed to gather initial insights into opinions on the use of PPI in regulatory decisions regarding medical products. The interviews were used to draft and validate the interview guide for focus groups with patients with RA. Participants were purposively sampled in collaboration with the Swedish Rheumatism Association in Stockholm and Uppsala. Each focus group consisted of three to six patients (18 in total). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using content analysis. Results: According to the participants, PPI could lead to regulators considering patients’ needs, lifestyles and well-being when making decisions. PPI was important in all stages of the medical product lifecycle. Participants reported that, when participating in a preference study, it is important to be well-informed about the use of the study and the development, components, administration, and risks related to the medical products. Conclusions: Patients thought PPI could be valuable to consider in regulatory decisions. It is essential for patients to be well-informed when asked for their preferences. Research on information materials to inform patients in preference studies is needed to increase the value of PPI in regulatory decision making

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

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

Ethics takes time, but not that long

© 2007 Hansson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Swedish parents’ interest in preconception genetic carrier screening

Introduction: Genetic technologies advance rapidly. It is possible to undergo genetic carrier screening before pregnancy to examine genetic risks to future offspring. We aimed to investigate parents’ interest and motives towards preconception genetic carrier screening (PCS) as well as factors associated with interest in PCS. Material and methods: Our study sample consists of 777 parent couples within the longitudinal Swedish Pregnancy Planning study. Women responded to questionnaires at three occasions: in early pregnancy, late pregnancy, and one year after childbirth. Male partners responded to one questionnaire one year after childbirth. Results: One-third of the parents were positive (30% versus 34% of women and men, respectively), less than a third were negative (26% versus 28%), and 45% versus 38% were uncertain about whether to consider PCS before a future pregnancy. No differences in PCS interest were found between women and men (P = 0.091), but a higher proportion of women were concerned about negative consequences (53% versus 46%, P < 0.003) and were ‘opposed to such a way of child selection’ (31.8% versus 25.2%,P = 0.002). Factors associated with PCS interest were experiences of prenatal diagnostics and positive attitudes towards finding out or choosing sex of one’s child (women), and prenatal diagnostics, self-rated poor health, and pregnancy planning (men). Conclusion: Both women and men had relatively high uncertainty towards PCS, but women were more concerned about negative consequences. The future extent of the clinical utility of PCS is currently unknown, but parents’ interests and doubts are important aspects to consider

Giving patients' preferences a voice in the medical product lifecycle: why, when and how? : The public-private PREFER project: Work package 2

IMI-PREFE

Giving patients' preferences a voice in the medical product lifecycle: why, when and how? : The public-private PREFER project: Work package 2

IMI-PREFE

Swedish large-scale schizophrenia study : Why do patients and healthy controls participate?

Insights into determination of study participation are useful for researchers, clinicians and for ethical considerations. Few large-scale genomic studies have involved motives for enrollment, in schizophrenia patients and unaffected controls. In a case-control study with participants recruited nation-wide in Sweden between 2005 and 2010, semi-structured interviews on motives and attitudes towards future studies were explored in 2767 schizophrenia cases and 4466 controls. In qualitative and quantitative analyses, we identified altruism as a major determinant in 84% of the cases and in 97% of the controls. Among pre-defined subcategories of altruism, cases with schizophrenia were more often referring to science for example, ‘I want to help science move forward’ or ‘I want better medications for future generations’ in relation to unaffected controls that were more often referring to common humanity such as ‘It is my duty and responsibility to help’. In schizophrenia, motives related to personal benefit and social influence were reported by 9% and 5%. We conclude that individuals with schizophrenia frequently report altruistic motives for study participation, almost to the same extent as unaffected controls. In contrast to unfortunate stereotypes, people with schizophrenia wish others to benefit from their experiences with severe mental illness and should not be refrained from participating in genomic research

Does being exposed to an educational tool influence patient preferences?:The influence of an educational tool on patient preferences assessed by a discrete choice experiment.

Objectives: There is an increased interest in patient preferences informing the development and authorisation of medical products. A requirement for robust and meaningful results of such studies is that patients adequately understand the risks and benefits associated with treatments for which their preferences are elicited. This study aims to determine the influence of an educational tool, compared with traditional written information on patient preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: Treatment preferences of Swedish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed using a DCE. Patients were recruited via clinics, a research panel, and the Swedish Rheumatism Association. Respondents received training materials either as plain written text or as an online educational tool. The educational tool was designed to enhance understanding of the written text by using graphics, pictograms, icon arrays, spoken text, and click-on functions. Data were analysed using random parameter logit models. Results: 675 patients with RA were included in the analysis. The patients received either a written information (n = 358) or information via an educational tool (n = 317). Respondents receiving the educational tool placed relatively more importance on all included side effects in their decision making, compared to respondents receiving the written text, who placed greater importance on treatment effectiveness and administration methods. Conclusion: Compared to the respondents receiving the written text, the decisions of respondents receiving the educational tool were more influenced by medication side effects. Further research is needed to provide guidance on how and when to use educational tools to inform and elicit patients’ preferences. Practice implications: The ways in which attributes are presented to patients significantly impacts preferences measured in a DCE