Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advancing the Use of Patient Preference Information as Scientific Evidence in Medical Product Evaluation: A Summary Report of the Patient Preference Workshop

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Presented by Bennett Levitan, Janssen Research & Development, LLC (reproduced with permission)

References

  1. Hunter NL, O’Callaghan KM, Califf RM. Engaging patients across the spectrum of medical product development: view from the US Food and Drug Administration. JAMA. 2015;314(23):2499–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. UCSF. Patient Preference Workshop. Advancing use of patient preference information as scientific evidence in medical product evaluation. 2018. https://pharm.ucsf.edu/cersi/pp-workshop. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  4. US 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. 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm446680.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  5. Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, Brown DS, Ostermann J. Health preference research: an overview. Patient. 2017;10(4):507–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dirksen CD, Utens CM, Joore MA, et al. Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Purks JL, Wilhelm EE, Shoulson I, Creveling J, Dorsey ER, Irony T, et al. Inaugural conference on incorporating patient-reported outcomes and patient preference information into clinical research, clinical care, and risk-benefit assessments for neurodegenerative diseases. Patient. 2017;10(5):541–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson FR, Beusterien K, Özdemir S, Wilson L. Giving patients a meaningful voice in United States regulatory decision making: the role for health preference research. Patient. 2017;10(4):523–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. US FDA. Public Workshop. The patient preference initiative: incorporating patient preference information into the medical device regulatory processes, September 18–19, 2013. 2019. http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112084903/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm361864.htm. Accessed 24 Sep 2019.

  12. Medical Device Innovation Consortium. A framework for incorporating information on patient preferences regarding benefit and risk into regulatory assessments of new medical technology. 2015. http://mdic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MDIC_PCBR_Framework_Web1.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  13. Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(7):1324–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bridges J, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. A checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Taskforce. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:300–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rydén A, Chen S, Flood E, Romero B, Grandy S. Discrete choice experiment attribute selection using a multinational interview study: treatment features important to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patient. 2017;10(4):475–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vass CM, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(9):859–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Arentze T, Borgers A, Timmermans H, DelMistro R. Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transp Res E Log. 2003;39(3):229–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levitan B, Hauber AB, Damiano MG, et al. The ball is in your court: agenda for research to advance the science of patient preferences in the regulatory review of medical devices in the United States. Patient. 2017;10(5):531–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mühlbacher A, Johnson FR. Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(3):253–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson FR, Zhou M. Patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspective. Value Health. 2016;19(6):741–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public-private project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. US FDA. CDER patient-focused drug development. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm579400.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

  25. US FDA. Patient preference information (PPI) in medical device decision-making. 2019. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-patient-engagement/patient-preference-information-ppi-medical-device-decision-making. Accessed 27 Sep 2019.

  26. Patient focused drug development and patient engagement at CBER. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ResourcesforYou/ucm615053.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the extensive contributions of the workshop planning committee, including Vishal Bhatnagar, Donna Blum-Kemelor, Michelle Campbell, Meghana Chalasani, Ebony Dashiell-Aje, Liana Fraenkel, Martin Ho, Telba Irony, Ellen Janssen, Laura Lee Johnson, Paul Kluetz, Lawrence Lin, Theresa Mullin, Mimi Nguyen, Kathryn O’Callaghan, Elektra Papadopoulos, Michelle Tarver, Million Tegenge, Audrey Thomas, Pujita Vaidya, Frank F. Weichold, Rebekah Zinn, and invited speakers, including G. Caleb Alexander, R. Scott Braithwaite, Stephanie Christopher, Andrea Ferris, Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Nancy Goodman, Cynthia Grossman, Kara L. Haas, Janel Hanmer, A. Brett Hauber, RADM Denise Hinton, Frank Hurst, Catherine Kopil, Tamar Krishnamurti, Kerry Jo Lee, Bennett Levitan, Carol Linden, Deborah A. Marshall, K. Kimberly McCleary, C. Daniel Mullins, Rebecca Noel, Elisabeth (Liz) Piault-Louis, Gregory Reaman, Matt Reaney, Joseph S. Ross, Shelby D. Reed, and Melissa West.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Megan Moncur

    Present address: FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA

  2. Heather L. Benz

    Present address: FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA

  3. Jui-Hua Tsai

    Present address: Pharmerit International, Bethesda, USA

  4. John F. P. Bridges

    Present address: Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Heather L. Benz, Ting-Hsuan (Joyce) Lee & Anindita Saha

  2. Johns Hopkins University Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Jui-Hua Tsai & John F. P. Bridges

  3. FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Sara Eggers

  4. University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Fadia T. Shaya

  5. Georgetown University Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, Washington, DC, USA

    Ira Shoulson

  6. Yale University-Mayo Clinic Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, New Haven, CT, USA

    Erica S. Spatz

  7. UCSF-Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Leslie Wilson

  8. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA

    Jui-Hua Tsai & John F. P. Bridges

  9. FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Megan Moncur

Authors
  1. Heather L. Benz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting-Hsuan (Joyce) Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jui-Hua Tsai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John F. P. Bridges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sara Eggers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Megan Moncur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fadia T. Shaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ira Shoulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Erica S. Spatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Leslie Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Anindita Saha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather L. Benz.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by a Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation grant to Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, Mayo Clinic, Stanford University, University of California San Francisco, University of Maryland, and Yale University from the US Food and Drug Administration (grant numbers UO1FD004979, U01FD005942, U01FD005946, U01FD005938, U01FD004319).

Conflict of interest

Heather L. Benz, Ting-Hsuan (Joyce) Lee, Jui-Hua Tsai, John F.P. Bridges, Sara Eggers, Megan Moncur, Fadia T. Shaya, Ira Shoulson, Erica S. Spatz, Leslie Wilson, and Anindita Saha have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Disclaimer

This article reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent the FDA’s views or policies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benz, H.L., Lee, TH.(., Tsai, JH. 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 12, 553–557 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00396-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00396-5

Search

Navigation