Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.
Journal
PharmacoEconomics
ISSN: 1179-2027
Titre abrégé: Pharmacoeconomics
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9212404
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
accepted:
18
09
2022
pubmed:
14
11
2022
medline:
7
1
2023
entrez:
13
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Targeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy. We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies. The review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results. This is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Targeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.
METHODS
We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.
RESULTS
The review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36372823
doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01198-8
pii: 10.1007/s40273-022-01198-8
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
43-57Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Prostate. 2014 Nov;74(15):1488-97
pubmed: 25132622
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
pubmed: 18620460
Future Oncol. 2022 Feb;18(4):491-503
pubmed: 34875854
Lancet. 2018 Mar 17;391(10125):1023-1075
pubmed: 29395269
Adv Ther. 2019 Feb;36(2):318-332
pubmed: 30617763
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:307-14
pubmed: 21792302
Genet Med. 2020 Dec;22(12):2011-2019
pubmed: 32820245
Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Oct;31(10):877-92
pubmed: 24081453
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):300-15
pubmed: 27325321
Springerplus. 2015 Nov 05;4:674
pubmed: 26558177
Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Oct;36(10):1677-1686
pubmed: 32609014
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Jul;35(7):697-716
pubmed: 28374325
Future Oncol. 2020 May;16(13):859-868
pubmed: 32292062
J Thyroid Res. 2015;2015:438235
pubmed: 26697261
Cancer Med. 2020 Sep;9(18):6586-6596
pubmed: 32725755
N Engl J Med. 2015 Feb 26;372(9):793-5
pubmed: 25635347
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Nov;160(1):187-196
pubmed: 27654970
Health Econ Rev. 2020 Dec 09;10(1):39
pubmed: 33296066
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Feb;37(2):201-226
pubmed: 30392040
Patient. 2019 Dec;12(6):559-569
pubmed: 31321706
Nature. 2010 Sep 30;467(7315):543-9
pubmed: 20882008
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Jan 22;15:99-110
pubmed: 33519195
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Nov 09;12:2387-2396
pubmed: 30519004
Value Health Reg Issues. 2021 Sep;25:7-14
pubmed: 33482436
J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1139-48
pubmed: 22808923
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
Lancet Oncol. 2016 May;17(5):577-89
pubmed: 27083334
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014 Nov;23(6):762-72
pubmed: 24840999
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Jun;43(6):1094-104
pubmed: 22575718
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Aug;44(8):1041-1049
pubmed: 30045140
Future Oncol. 2019 Dec;15(34):3895-3907
pubmed: 31621403
Breast Cancer. 2019 Sep;26(5):652-662
pubmed: 30949915
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021 Mar 18;15:611-623
pubmed: 33776424
Curr Oncol. 2021 Jan 14;28(1):491-508
pubmed: 33466914
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Qual Life Res. 2007 Apr;16(3):509-22
pubmed: 17091359
Future Oncol. 2022 Jun;18(17):2075-2085
pubmed: 35209721
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13
pubmed: 23337210
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Nov;29(11):977-88
pubmed: 21854079
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 15;9(2):87-97
pubmed: 22083042
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Feb;36(2):175-187
pubmed: 28975582
Patient. 2020 Oct;13(5):521-536
pubmed: 32686052
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015 Jul 02;9:899-911
pubmed: 26170640
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Aug;7(8):
pubmed: 35977755
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 Jul;25(4):580-91
pubmed: 26676876
Patient. 2017 Oct;10(5):553-565
pubmed: 28364387
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Oct;6(10):
pubmed: 34702751
Patient. 2019 Feb;12(1):1-14
pubmed: 30073482
Inquiry. 2021 Jan-Dec;58:469580211024894
pubmed: 34253073
Future Oncol. 2019 Apr;15(11):1255-1268
pubmed: 30694080
Clin Ther. 2017 Apr;39(4):723-737
pubmed: 28366592
Cancer Manag Res. 2017 Apr 27;9:149-158
pubmed: 28490902
Pharmacoecon Open. 2021 Mar;5(1):101-109
pubmed: 32285402
Patient. 2021 Nov;14(6):775-790
pubmed: 33950476
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1078-1088
pubmed: 32222192
J Glob Health. 2020 Dec;10(2):020322
pubmed: 33110524
Cancer Med. 2021 May;10(9):2996-3003
pubmed: 33811457
Melanoma Res. 2019 Dec;29(6):626-634
pubmed: 30688762
Vaccine. 2020 Oct 27;38(46):7226-7238
pubmed: 33023774
Ann Surg Oncol. 2020 Feb;27(2):571-584
pubmed: 31664622
Eur Urol. 2014 Dec;66(6):1148-56
pubmed: 24612661
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 Nov 05;14:2201-2214
pubmed: 33177814
J Med Econ. 2020 Jun;23(6):546-556
pubmed: 32011209
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Aug;36(8):973-986
pubmed: 29869777
BMC Cancer. 2020 Jun 11;20(1):546
pubmed: 32527324
Value Health. 2012 Sep-Oct;15(6):933-9
pubmed: 22999144
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Mar;156(3):561-567
pubmed: 31982178
Patient. 2018 Jun;11(3):301-317
pubmed: 29177797
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Jul;19(6):807-820
pubmed: 28803265
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Mar 01;16:573-585
pubmed: 35256844
Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Dec;143(3):622-627
pubmed: 27771167
Acta Derm Venereol. 2020 Mar 18;100(6):adv00083
pubmed: 32057087
Patient. 2020 Apr;13(2):145-149
pubmed: 31942698
China CDC Wkly. 2020 Jan 31;2(5):75-78
pubmed: 34594811
Curr Oncol. 2019 Dec;26(6):e755-e765
pubmed: 31896946
BMC Urol. 2016 Nov 4;16(1):63
pubmed: 27814714