Individual Differences in the Patient Experience of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RMS): A Multi-Country Qualitative Exploration of Drivers of Treatment Preferences Among People Living with RMS.
Journal
The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
accepted:
30
01
2023
medline:
26
6
2023
pubmed:
6
4
2023
entrez:
5
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, values and preferences of people living with relapsing multiple sclerosis (PLwRMS) focusing on their treatments and what drives their treatment preferences. In-depth, semi-structured, qualitative telephone interviews were conducted using a purposive sampling approach with 72 PLwRMS and 12 health care professionals (HCPs, MS specialist neurologists and nurses) from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Canada. Concept elicitation questioning was used to elicit PLwRMS' attitudes, beliefs and preferences towards features of disease-modifying treatments. Interviews with HCPs were conducted to inform on HCPs' experiences of treating PLwRMS. Responses were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and then subjected to thematic analysis. Participants discussed numerous concepts that were important to them when making treatment decisions. Levels of importance participants placed on each concept, as well as reasons underpinning importance, varied substantially. The concepts with the greatest variability in terms of how much PLwRMS found them to be important in their decision-making process were mode of administration, speed of treatment effect, impact on reproduction and parenthood, impact on work and social life, patient engagement in decision making, and cost of treatment to the participant. Findings also demonstrated high variability in what participants described as their ideal treatment and the most important features a treatment should have. HCP findings provided clinical context for the treatment decision-making process and supported patient findings. Building upon previous stated preference research, this study highlighted the importance of qualitative research in understanding what drives patient preferences. Characterized by the heterogeneity of the RMS patient experience, findings indicate the nature of treatment decisions in RMS to be highly individualized, and the subjective relative importance placed on different treatment factors by PLwRMS to vary. Such qualitative patient preference evidence could offer valuable and supplementary insights, alongside quantitative data, to inform decision making related to RMS treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37017920
doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00617-y
pii: 10.1007/s40271-023-00617-y
pmc: PMC10074350
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
345-357Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Olek MJ, Narayan RN, Frohman EM, Frohman TC (2018) Clinical features of multiple sclerosis in adults. UpToDate. UpToDate, Waltham, MA. Accessed 2 Apr 2018.
Stadelmann C, Wegner C, Brück W. Inflammation, demyelination, and degeneration—recent insights from MS pathology. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) Mol Basis Dis. 2011;1812(2):275–82.
Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Moreau T, Adeleine P. Relapses and progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(20):1430–8.
pubmed: 11078767
Bottomley C, Lloyd A, Bennett G, Adlard N. A discrete choice experiment to determine UK patient preference for attributes of disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2017;20(8):863–70.
pubmed: 28562125
Desborough J, Brunoro C, Parkinson A, et al. ‘It struck at the heart of who I thought I was’: a meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature examining the experiences of people with multiple sclerosis. Health Expect. 2020;23(5):1007–27.
pubmed: 32578287
pmcid: 7696124
Moriya R, Suzuki S. A qualitative study relating to the experiences of people with MS: differences by disease severity. Br J Neurosci Nurs. 2011;7(4):593–600.
Ploughman M, Austin MW, Murdoch M, Kearney A, Godwin M, Stefanelli M. The path to self-management: a qualitative study involving older people with multiple sclerosis. Physiother Can. 2012;64(1):6–17.
pubmed: 23277680
pmcid: 3280705
Pardo G, Jones DE. The sequence of disease-modifying therapies in relapsing multiple sclerosis: safety and immunologic considerations. J Neurol. 2017;264(12):2351–74.
pubmed: 28879412
pmcid: 5688209
McKay KA, Tremlett H, Patten SB, et al. Determinants of non-adherence to disease-modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: a cross-Canada prospective study. Mult Scler J. 2017;23(4):588–96.
Ibrahim F, Deleu D. Assessment of non-adherence of multiple sclerosis patients to medication and follow up clinic. Health Sci J. 2018;12(2):1–5.
Nicholas JA, Edwards NC, Edwards RA, Dellarole A, Grosso M, Phillips AL. Real-world adherence to, and persistence with, once-and twice-daily oral disease-modifying drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2020;20(1):1–15.
Li P, Ladage VP, Berger J, et al. Disease-modifying therapy adherence and associated factors in a national sample of Medicare patients with multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2020;23(3):328–34.
pubmed: 32197728
Kołtuniuk A, Rosińczuk J. Adherence to disease-modifying therapies in patients with multiple sclerosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1557.
pubmed: 30197506
pmcid: 6112814
Manzano A, Eskytė I, Ford HL, Bekker HL, Potrata B, Chataway J, Pavitt SH. Impact of communication on first treatment decisions in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(12):2540–7.
NICE. Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Summary. https://bnf.nice.org.uk/treatment-summary/multiple-sclerosis.html . Accessed.
NICE. Multiple Sclerosis Pathway. https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/multiple-sclerosis#path=view%3A/pathways/multiple-sclerosis/managing-multiple-sclerosis.xml&content=view-index . Accessed.
Broadley SA, Barnett MH, Boggild M, et al. Therapeutic approaches to disease modifying therapy for multiple sclerosis in adults: an Australian and New Zealand perspective Part 3 Treatment practicalities and recommendations. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(11):1857–65.
pubmed: 24993136
Tsang BK, Macdonell R. Multiple sclerosis: diagnosis, management and prognosis. Aust Fam Physician. 2011;40(12):948–55.
pubmed: 22146321
Freedman MS, Devonshire V, Duquette P, et al. Treatment optimization in multiple sclerosis: Canadian MS Working Group recommendations. Can J Neurol Sci. 2020;47(4):437–55.
pubmed: 32654681
Rae-Grant A, Day GS, Marrie RA, et al. Practice guideline recommendations summary: disease-modifying therapies for adults with multiple sclerosis: report of the guideline development, dissemination, and implementation subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2018;90(17):777–88.
pubmed: 29686116
van Eijndhoven E, Brauer M, Kee R, et al. Modeling the impact of patient treatment preference on health outcomes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Med Econ. 2020;23(5):474–83.
pubmed: 31903813
FDA. Patient preference information—voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-preference-information-voluntary-submission-review-premarket-approval-applications . Accessed 2016.
FDA. Developing and submitting proposed draft guidance relating to patient experience data draft guidance. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/developing-and-submitting-proposed-draft-guidance-relating-patient-experience-data . Accessed 2018.
Webb EJ, Meads D, Eskyte I, et al. A systematic review of discrete-choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies in people with multiple sclerosis. Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2018;11(4):391–402.
England N. Treatment algorithm for multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies. https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/03/Treatment-Algorithm-for-Multiple-Sclerosis-Disease-Modifying-Therapies-08-03-2019-1.pdf . Published 2018. Accessed.
Wilson L, Loucks A, Bui C, et al. Patient centered decision making: Use of conjoint analysis to determine risk–benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices. J Neurol Sci. 2014;344(1–2):80–7.
pubmed: 25037284
Bayas A, Mäurer M. Teriflunomide for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis: patient preference and adherence. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:265.
pubmed: 25709412
pmcid: 4332317
Eskyte I, Manzano A, Pepper G, Pavitt S, Ford H, Bekker H, Potrata B. Understanding treatment decisions from the perspective of people with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a critical interpretive synthesis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;27:370–7.
pubmed: 30476873
Manzano A, Eskyté I, Ford HL, Pavitt SH, Potrata B, Schmierer K, Bekker HL. Patient perspective on decisions to switch disease-modifying treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;46:102–507.
Bouvy JC, Cowie L, Lovett R, Morrison D, Livingstone H, Crabb N. Use of patient preference studies in HTA decision making: a NICE perspective. Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2020;13(2):145–9.
Marsh K, van Til JA, Molsen-David E, Juhnke C, Hawken N, Oehrlein EM, Muehlbacher A. Health preference research in Europe: a review of its use in marketing authorization, reimbursement, and pricing decisions—report of the ISPOR Stated Preference Research Special Interest Group. Value Health. 2020;23(7):831–41.
pubmed: 32762984
SMC. Patient and clinician engagement (PACE) meetings overview. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/media/5423/pace-overview-document-v32.pdf . Accessed.
Cowie L, Bouvy J. Measuring patient preferences: an exploratory study to determine how patient preferences data could be used in health technology assessment (HTa). Myeloma UK, 2019. https://www.myeloma.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NICE-Patient-Preferences-Report.pdf . Accessed June 2019.
Van Overbeeke E, Forrester V, Simoens S, Hays I. Use of patient preferences in health technology assessment: perspectives of canadian, belgian, and german HTA representatives. Patient Patient-Cent Outcomes Res. 2021;14:119–28.
Humphrey L, Willgoss T, Trigg A, et al. A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;1(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6 .
pubmed: 29757313
pmcid: 5934934
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10(3):269–81.
pubmed: 20545592
Thompson J. A guide to abductive thematic analysis. Qual Rep. 2022;27(5):1410–21. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.53405340 .
Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–45.
pubmed: 20204937
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.
Lamoureux R, Shields A, Stokes J, Yaworsky A, Galipeau N. How many subjects are enough for symptom-focused concept elicitation studies? A retrospective analysis of saturation across twenty-six studies. Value Health. 2015;18(3):A33.
Ascherio A, Munger KL. Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: from risk factors to prevention—an update. Semin Neurol. 2016;36(2):103–14.
pubmed: 27116717
Brown H, Gabriele S, White J. Physician and patient treatment decision-making in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Europe and the USA. Neurodegener Disease Manag. 2018;8(6):371–6.
Miller DM, Moss B, Rose S, Li H, Schindler D, Weber M, Planchon SM, Alberts J, Boissy A, Bermel R. Obtaining patient priorities in a multiple sclerosis comprehensive care center: beyond patient-reported outcomes. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(4):541–8.
pubmed: 33062876
Webb EJD, Meads D, Eskytė I, Ford HL, Bekker HL, Chataway J, Pepper G, Marti J, Okan Y, Pavitt SH, Schmierer K, Manzano A. The impact of reproductive issues on preferences of women with relapsing multiple sclerosis for disease-modifying treatments. Patient. 2020;13(5):583–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00429-4 .
pubmed: 32588337
Alden DL, Friend J, Lee PY, Lee YK, Trevena L, Ng CJ, Limpongsanurak S. Who decides: me or we? Family involvement in medical decision making in eastern and western countries. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(1):14–25.
Reeler AV. Anthropological perspectives on injections: a review. Bull World Health Org. 2000;78(1):135–43.
pubmed: 10686748
pmcid: 2560596
Rieckmann P, Boyko A, Centonze D, Elovaara I, Giovannoni G, Havrdová E, Hommes O, Kesselring J, Kobelt G, Langdon D, LeLorier J. Achieving patient engagement in multiple sclerosis: a perspective from the multiple sclerosis in the 21st Century Steering Group. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4(3):202–18.
pubmed: 26008937
The Multiple Sclerosis International Federation, Atlas of MS, 3rd edition (September 2020).
Feinstein A, Freeman J, Lo AC. Treatment of progressive multiple sclerosis: what works, what does not, and what is needed. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(2):194–207.
pubmed: 25772898
Berard JA, Smith AM, Walker LA. A longitudinal evaluation of cognitive fatigue on a task of sustained attention in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2018;20(2):55–61.
pubmed: 29670491
pmcid: 5898916
Powell DJ, Liossi C, Schlotz W, Moss-Morris R. Tracking daily fatigue fluctuations in multiple sclerosis: ecological momentary assessment provides unique insights. J Behav Med. 2017;40(5):772–83.
pubmed: 28281106
pmcid: 5613039