How to integrate evidence from patient preference studies into health technology assessment: a critical review and recommendations

Abstract Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies vary in their use of quantitative patient preference data (PP) and the extent to which they have formalized this use in their guidelines. Based on the authors' knowledge of the literature, we identified six different PP “use cases” that integrate PP into HTA in five different ways: through endpoint selection, clinical benefit rating, predicting uptake, input into economic evaluation, and a means to weight all HTA criteria. Five types of insight are distinguished across the use cases: understanding what matters to patients, predicting patient choices, estimating the utility generated by treatment benefits, estimating the willingness to pay for treatment benefits, and informing distributional considerations. Summarizing the literature on these use cases, we recommend circumstances in which PP can add value to HTA and the further research and guidance that is required to support the integration of PP in HTA. Where HTA places more emphasis on clinical outcomes, novel endpoints are available; or where there are already many treatment options, PP can add value by helping decision makers to understand what matters to patients. Where uptake is uncertain, PP can be used to estimate uptake probability. Where indication-specific utility functions are required or where existing utility measures fail to capture the value of treatments, PP can be used to generate or supplement existing utility estimates. Where patients are paying out of pocket, PP can be used to estimate willingness to pay.

[1]  K. Marsh,et al.  Assessing Patient Preferences in Rare Diseases: Direct Preference Elicitation in the Rare Chronic Kidney Disease, Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy , 2021, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[2]  S. Simoens,et al.  Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives , 2020, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[3]  I. Huys,et al.  An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process? , 2020, Health policy.

[4]  K. Marsh,et al.  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. , 2020, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[5]  C. Phelps,et al.  Health technology assessment with risk aversion in health. , 2020, Journal of health economics.

[6]  J. Bouvy,et al.  Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective , 2020, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[7]  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis at Low Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment. , 2020, Ontario health technology assessment series.

[8]  Genome-Wide Sequencing for Unexplained Developmental Disabilities or Multiple Congenital Anomalies: A Health Technology Assessment. , 2020, Ontario health technology assessment series.

[9]  S. Simoens,et al.  Design, Conduct, and Use of Patient Preference Studies in the Medical Product Life Cycle: A Multi-Method Study , 2019, Front. Pharmacol..

[10]  F. Gutzwiller,et al.  Gathering Structured Patient Insight to Drive the PRO Strategy in COPD: Patient-Centric Drug Development from Theory to Practice , 2019, Advances in Therapy.

[11]  J. van Exel,et al.  What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[12]  M. Bliemer,et al.  Are Healthcare Choices Predictable? The Impact of Discrete Choice Experiment Designs and Models. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[13]  A. Holtorf,et al.  Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs , 2019, Front. Med..

[14]  J. Rose,et al.  Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment , 2018, BMC Health Services Research.

[15]  Tommi Tervonen,et al.  The Use of MCDA in HTA: Great Potential, but More Effort Needed. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[16]  F. Johnson,et al.  Giving Patients a Meaningful Voice in European Health Technology Assessments: The Role of Health Preference Research , 2017, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[17]  A. Mühlbacher,et al.  The Probabilistic Efficiency Frontier: A Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Germany Put into Practice for Hepatitis C Treatment Options. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[18]  W. Brouwer,et al.  Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. , 2016, Social Science & Medicine (1967).

[19]  P. Vickerman,et al.  Parameterising User Uptake in Economic Evaluations: The role of discrete choice experiments , 2016, Health economics.

[20]  K. Marsh,et al.  Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature , 2014, PharmacoEconomics.

[21]  Anja Schwalm,et al.  Choice-based Conjoint Analysis – pilot project to identify , weight , and prioritize multiple attributes in the indication “ hepatitis C ” 1 , 2014 .

[22]  M. Ryan,et al.  Developing a Preference-Based Glaucoma Utility Index Using a Discrete Choice Experiment , 2007, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[23]  Jan Abel Olsen,et al.  The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[24]  P. Ubel,et al.  Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. , 2000, Health economics.