Advertisement

Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective

  • Jacoline C. BouvyEmail author
  • Luke Cowie
  • Rosemary Lovett
  • Deborah Morrison
  • Heidi Livingstone
  • Nick Crabb
Current Opinion

Abstract

Patient preference studies could provide valuable insights to a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence committee into the preferences patients have for different treatment options, especially if the study sample is representative of the broader patient population. We identify three main uses of patient preference studies along a technology’s pathway from drug development to clinical use: in early clinical development to guide the selection of appropriate endpoints, to inform benefit-risk assessments carried out by regulators and to inform reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment bodies. In the context of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s methods and processes, we do not see a role for quantitative patient preference data to be directly incorporated into health economic modelling. Rather, we see a role for patient preference studies to be submitted alongside other types of evidence. Examples where patient preference studies might have added value in health technology assessments include cases where two distinctly different treatment options are being compared, when patients have to decide between multiple treatment options, when technologies have important non-health benefits or when a treatment is indicated for a heterogenous population.

Notes

Author Contributions

JCB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. LC, RL, DM, HL and NC wrote parts of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Jacoline Bouvy, Luke Cowie, Rosie Lovett, Deborah Morrison, Heidi Livingstone and Nick Crabb have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    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. Available from: https://www.myeloma.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NICE-Patient-Preferences-Report.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Chaudhuri SE, Ho MP, Irony T, Sheldon M, Lo AW. Patient-centered clinical trials. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(2):395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, Neuland CY, Whang JM, McMurry-Heath M, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janssens R, Russo S, van Overbeeke E, 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;12:513–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mott DM. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: is HTA falling behind? Patient. 2018;11:249–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benz HL, Lee THJ, Hua Tsai J, 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;12:553–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reed Johnson F, Zhou M. Patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspective. Value Health. 2016;19(6):741–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, Levitan B, Christopher S, Zandlo K, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege HL, Salmonson T, Ryll B, Plate A, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(5):548–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Choice-based conjoint analysis: pilot project to identify, weight, and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “hepatitis C”. Working paper (English summary). 2014. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/en/projects-results/projects/health-economic/ga10-03-pilot-study-conjoint-analysis-in-the-indication-hepatitis-c.1411.html. Accessed 13 Sept 2019.
  13. 13.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE provides first scientific advice on patient preference study design. 2019. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-provides-first-scientific-advice-on-patient-preference-study-design. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.
  14. 14.
    IMI PREFER. About PREFER. 2019. Available from: https://www.imi-prefer.eu/about/. Accessed 30 Oct 2019.
  15. 15.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Our research work. 2019. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/research. Accessed 30 Nov 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science Policy and Research ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceLondonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Health Technology EvaluationNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceManchesterUK
  3. 3.Scientific AdviceNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceManchesterUK
  4. 4.Public Involvement ProgrammeNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations