Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 2984–2993 | Cite as

Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making

  • Martin P. Ho
  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez
  • Herbert P. Lerner
  • Carolyn Y. Neuland
  • Joyce M. Whang
  • Michelle McMurry-Heath
  • A. Brett Hauber
  • Telba Irony



Patients have a unique role in deciding what treatments should be available for them and regulatory agencies should take their preferences into account when making treatment approval decisions. This is the first study designed to obtain quantitative patient-preference evidence to inform regulatory approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health.


Five-hundred and forty United States adults with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 evaluated tradeoffs among effectiveness, safety, and other attributes of weight-loss devices in a scientific survey. Discrete-choice experiments were used to quantify the importance of safety, effectiveness, and other attributes of weight-loss devices to obese respondents. A tool based on these measures is being used to inform benefit-risk assessments for premarket approval of medical devices.


Respondent choices yielded preference scores indicating their relative value for attributes of weight-loss devices in this study. We developed a tool to estimate the minimum weight loss acceptable by a patient to receive a device with a given risk profile and the maximum mortality risk tolerable in exchange for a given weight loss. For example, to accept a device with 0.01 % mortality risk, a risk tolerant patient will require about 10 % total body weight loss lasting 5 years.


Patient preference evidence was used make regulatory decision making more patient-centered. In addition, we captured the heterogeneity of patient preferences allowing market approval of effective devices for risk tolerant patients. CDRH is using the study tool to define minimum clinical effectiveness to evaluate new weight-loss devices. The methods presented can be applied to a wide variety of medical products. This study supports the ongoing development of a guidance document on incorporating patient preferences into medical-device premarket approval decisions.


Patient preferences Weight-loss devices Obesity treatment FDA Benefit-risk assessment Regulatory-approval decisions 



We acknowledge Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD for his support of the study and insightful advice on the manuscript. We also acknowledge Priya Venkataraman-Rao, MD; Megan Shackelford, MS; Rebecca Nipper; Richard Kotz, MS; Kathleen Olvey; and Martin Golding, MD, for their regulatory input in the development of the survey instrument. We are grateful to the FDA CDRH Obesity Devices Working Group for their comments on interpretation of study results and their feedback on using the MinB–MaxR calculator in regulatory reviews of weight-loss device submissions. The members of that group include Jeffrey Cooper, DVM; Megan Shackelford, MS; Irene Bacalocostantis, PhD; Brandan Reid, PhD; Martha Betz, PhD; Elizabeth Katz, PhD; David Pudwill; Martin Golding, MD; Priya Venkataraman-Rao, MD; and Benjamin Fisher, PhD. The acknowledged persons above are of CDRH, FDA.


Drs. Hauber and Gonzalez received compensation for their work through a contract with the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ho, Lerner, Neuland, Whang, McMurry-Heath, and Irony have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2014_4044_MOESM1_ESM.docx (148 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 148 kb)


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Section 513(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 360c(a)]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lerner H, Whang J, Nipper R (2013) Benefit-risk paradigm for clinical trial design of obesity devices: FDA proposal. Surg Endosc 27(3):702–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shuren J, Woodcock J (2013) Reviewing FDA’s implementation of FDASIA. Accessed 2 Sept 2014
  5. 5.
    McMurry-Heath M (2013) FDA brings patients into the process. Accessed 2 Sept 2014
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B et al (2010) Conjoint analysis applications in health: how are studies being designed and reported? Patient 3(4):1178–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health 14(4):403–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D et al (2013) Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health 16(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 31:545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuhfeld WF (2010) Marketing research methods in SAS. Accessed 2 Sept 2014
  12. 12.
    Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM (2012) Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009–2010. NCHS Data Brief No. 82Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen NT, Masoomi H, Magno CP, Nguyen XMT, Laugenour K, Lane J (2011) Trends in use of bariatric surgery, 2003–2008. J Am Coll Surg 213(2):261–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callegaro M, DiSogra C (2008) Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opin Q 72(5):1008–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin P. Ho
    • 1
  • Juan Marcos Gonzalez
    • 2
  • Herbert P. Lerner
    • 1
  • Carolyn Y. Neuland
    • 1
  • Joyce M. Whang
    • 1
  • Michelle McMurry-Heath
    • 1
    • 3
  • A. Brett Hauber
    • 2
  • Telba Irony
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Devices and Radiological HealthU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.RTI Health SolutionsDurhamUSA
  3. 3.FaegreBD ConsultingWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations