Advertisement

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Lifecycle

  • Jennifer A. WhittyEmail author
  • Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
  • Nigel S. Cook
  • Fern Terris-Prestholt
  • Michael Drummond
  • Rocco Falchetto
  • Hans L. Hillege
Commentary
  • 39 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. From the International Academy of Health Preference Research

There is an emerging consensus that evidence on patients’ perspectives provides crucial guidance for decision making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). Considering the patient voice has become increasingly important for developers of new medical products and for authorities that assess, regulate and decide which products are effective, safe, well tolerated and cost effective [1, 2]. However, as key stakeholders, we lack a shared understanding about how to consider patient preferences in the MPLC [3].

This commentary captures opinions of thought leaders presenting at the symposium on “Patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle” in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. The symposium was jointly sponsored by the International Academy of Health Preference Research (http://www.iahpr.org) and the research project “Patient Preferences in Benefit and Risk Assessments during the Treatment Life Cycle” (PREFER; http://www.imi-prefer.eu). This commentary is one of a series of...

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the symposium panellists (Nigel S. Cook, Michael Drummond, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Irina Cleemput, Hans L. Hillege, and Rocco Falchetto) and participants for joining the conversation and sharing their opinions and ideas. They also thank Irina Cleemput for providing input into an initial draft of this paper and Samare P.I. Huls for taking notes to assist with the commentary preparation during the symposium.

Author Contributions

JW and EBG conceived the topic and framework for the symposium panel and paper, chaired the panel and prepared a joint draft of the paper. NSC, FTP, MD, RF and HLH presented at the panel and contributed their academic ideas to the paper. All authors reviewed and revised the draft for academic content and approved the final version for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Jennifer A. Whitty is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England (NIHR200177). Esther W. de Bekker-Grob is funded through a personal grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-Talent-Scheme-Veni-Grant No. 451-15-039) and supported by the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative [2] Joint Undertaking PREFER grant no. 115966. Nigel S. Cook is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG and the work presented was funded by Novartis. RF is funded through out-of-pocket private donations to the IPPN. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Conflict of Interest

Jennifer A. Whitty, Rocco Falchetto, Hans L. Hillege, Fern Terris-Prestholt and Michael Drummond are members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR). Esther W. de Bekker-Grob is a member of IAHPR and IMI-PREFER. Nigel S. Cook is a member of IAHPR and IMI-PREFER and is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG. None of the authors have any conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, Dewulf L, Geissler J, Johnston G, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: a call for action. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49(6):929–39.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015580384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith MY, Hammad TA, Metcalf M, Levitan B, Noel R, Wolka AM, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point: the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA Conference, “Patient Engagement in Benefit Risk Assessment Throughout the Life Cycle of Medical Products”. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(5):546–53.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016662902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, Christoforidi K, Cleemput I, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER Public-Private Project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0222-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonzalez JM, Johnson FR, Levitan B, Noel R, Peay H. Symposium title: preference evidence for regulatory decisions. Patient. 2018;11(5):467–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0311-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norman R, Craig BM, Hansen P, Jonker MF, Rose J, Street DJ, et al. Issues in the design of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2019;12(3):281–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0346-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ostermann J, Brown DS, van Til JA, Bansback N, Légaré F, Marshall DA, et al. Support tools for preference-sensitive decisions in healthcare: where are we? Where do we go? How do we get there? Patient. 2019;12(5):439–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00372-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involve Engagem. 2016;2(1):21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0036-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleemput I, Devriese S, Kohn L, Westhovens R. A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare. Health Policy. 2018;122(8):878–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.06.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook NS, Cave J, Holtorf A-P. Patient preference studies during early drug development: aligning stakeholders to ensure development plans meet patient needs. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019;6:82.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00082.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, et al. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janssens R, Russo S, van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Harding S, Kübler J, et al. Patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: what do stakeholders think? Semi-structured qualitative interviews in Europe and the USA. Patient. 2019;12(5):513–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00367-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benz HL, Lee T-H, Tsai J-H, Bridges JFP, Eggers S, Moncur M, et al. Advancing the use of patient preference information as scientific evidence in medical product evaluation: a summary report of the patient preference workshop. Patient. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00396-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Health Preference Study and Technology Register (HPSTR). International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR). http://www.hpstr.org. Accessed 23 Nov 2019.
  14. 14.
    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(4):403–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16683934.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levitan B, Getz K, Eisenstein E, Goldberg M, Harker M, Hesterlee S, et al. Assessing the financial value of patient engagement: a quantitative approach from CTTI’s Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52:220–9.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716715.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. The innovation imperative: the future of drug development. Part I: research methods and findings. A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (commissioned by Paraxel). London: The Economist Intelligence Unit; 2018. https://druginnovation.eiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Parexel-innovations-in-drug-development_V10.pdf
  19. 19.
    Whitty JA, Fraenkel L, Saigal CS, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Regier DA, Marshall DA. Assessment of individual patient preferences to inform clinical practice. Patient. 2017;10:519–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0254-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwich Medical School, University of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East of EnglandCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Erasmus School of Health Policy & ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Erasmus Choice Modelling CentreErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Decision Support, Global Patient AccessNovartis Pharma AGBaselSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Global Health and DevelopmentLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  7. 7.Centre for Health EconomicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  8. 8.International Porphyria Patient NetworkZurichSwitzerland
  9. 9.Department of Cardiology, Department of EpidemiologyUniversity Medical Center GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations