Dataset Information

Preferences for Renal Cell Carcinoma Pharmacological Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients and Oncologists.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The purpose of this investigation was to explore patients' and oncologists' preferences for the characteristics of a pharmacological regimen for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

Material and methods

Cross-sectional observational study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted in Spain. A literature review, a focus group with oncologists and interviews with patients informed the DCE design. Five attributes were included: progression survival gain, risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), administration mode, and treatment cost. Preferences were analyzed using a mixed-logit model to estimate relative importance (RI) of attributes (importance of an attribute in relation to all others), which was compared between aRCC patients and oncologists treating aRCC. Willingness to pay (WTP, payer: health system) for a benefit in survival or in risk reduction and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) in SAEs for improving survival were estimated from the DCE. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify factors that influence preference.

Results

A total of 105 patients with aRCC (77.1% male, mean age 65.9 years [SD: 10.4], mean time since RCC diagnosis 6.3 years [SD: 6.1]) and 67 oncologists (52.2% male, mean age 41.9 years [SD: 8.4], mean duration of experience in RCC 10.2 years [SD: 7.5]) participated in the study. The most important attribute for patients and oncologists was survival gain (RI: 43.6% vs. 54.7% respectively, p<0.05), followed by HRQoL (RI: 35.5% vs. 18.0%, respectively, p<0.05). MAR for SAEs was higher among oncologists than patients, while WTP (for the health system) was higher for patients. Differences in preferences were found according to time since diagnosis and education level (patients) or length of professional experience (oncologists).

Conclusion

Patients' and oncologists' preferences for aRCC treatment are determined mainly by the efficacy (survival gain) but also by the HRQoL provided. The results of the study can help to inform decision-making in the selection of appropriate aRCC treatment.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8777125 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to investigate patients' preferences regarding the evolving treatment landscape in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) based on a discrete choice experiment.MethodsEligible patients (aged 18 years or older) had a confirmed diagnosis of CD or UC and were willing and able to participate in telephone interviews. The survey design is based on a prior literature review, a pilot study, and clinical expert discussions. Preferences related to clinical and practical features of advanced therapies, like tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, anti-integrins, anti-interleukins, and Janus kinase inhibitors, were assessed. Patients were asked to choose between two different hypothetical treatment alternatives visualized in up to 11 choice scenarios. Based on these choices, the relative importance of treatment characteristics was derived from regression coefficients estimated by a conditional logit model.ResultsOf the 291 patients included, 219 (75%) were eligible for this analysis. Among the evaluated attributes in CD, 1-year remission rate was ranked highest, with 42.3% relevance for the overall decision. The second most important attribute was the frequency of serious adverse events (AE) (25.1%), followed by sustained remission over 2 years (17.8%). Lower importance was assigned to the administration mode (14.6%) and none to the frequency of non-serious AE (0.1%). In UC, preferences were driven by efficacy (25.3% for mucosal healing; 23.4% for corticosteroid-free remission) and the frequency of serious AE (18.3%), followed by the administration mode (18.1%). Also, non-serious AE were classified as relevant factors for decision-making (10.7%), while maintaining remission for at least 2 years showed no significant impact (4.4%).ConclusionFor both indications, efficacy outcomes were rated most important, followed by the frequency of serious AE. Variations were mainly found in the evaluation of non-serious AE and sustained remission. Considering patient preferences may improve the effectiveness of available therapies for moderate to severe CD and UC.