Preferences and Priorities for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Treatments Among Patients and Caregivers in the United States

Daniel Auclair, Carol Mansfield, Mark A Fiala, Ajai Chari, Craig E Cole, Jonathan L Kaufman, Gregory J Orloff, David S Siegel, Jeffrey A Zonder, Brennan Mange, Jennifer Yesil, Mehul Dalal, Joseph R Mikhael, Daniel Auclair, Carol Mansfield, Mark A Fiala, Ajai Chari, Craig E Cole, Jonathan L Kaufman, Gregory J Orloff, David S Siegel, Jeffrey A Zonder, Brennan Mange, Jennifer Yesil, Mehul Dalal, Joseph R Mikhael

Abstract

Introduction/background: This study aimed to describe patient and caregiver preferences for treatments of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM).

Materials and methods: A survey including discrete-choice experiment (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS) exercises was conducted among US patients with relapsed or refractory MM and their caregivers. The DCE included six attributes with varying levels including progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and mode and frequency of administration. In addition, the impact of treatment cost was assessed using a fixed-choice question. The BWS exercise included 18 items (modes and frequency of administration, additional treatment convenience, and toxicity items). The survey was administered online to patients recruited from the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation CoMMpass study (NCT01454297).

Results: The final samples consisted of 94 patients and 32 caregivers. Avoiding severe nerve damage was most important to patients, followed by longer PFS. Caregivers considered PFS to be the most important attribute. We estimate that a third or more of patients were cost-sensitive, meaning their treatment preference was altered based on cost implications. Caregivers were not cost-sensitive. The three most bothersome treatment features in the BWS exercise were risk of kidney failure, lowering white blood cell counts, and weakening the immune system.

Conclusion: Patients with relapsed or refractory MM and their caregivers consider many factors including efficacy, toxicity, mode/frequency of administration, and cost in their decisions regarding treatment options. The study provides a basis for future Research on patient and caregiver treatment preferences, which could be incorporated into shared decision-making with physicians.

Keywords: caregiver; discrete choice experiment; multiple myeloma; patient; preference.

Conflict of interest statement

Daniel Auclair reports grants from Takeda, during the conduct of the study performed at MMRF; he is now an AstraZeneca employee. Carol Mansfield and Brennan Mange are salaried employees of RTI Health Solutions which was contracted by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical International Co. to assist in the analysis and writing. Craig E Cole reports personal fees and/or grants from Oncopeptides, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Jonathan L Kaufman reports grants and/or personal fees from Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Roche, Sutro, TG therapeutics, Incyte, BMS, and Tecnofarma, outside the submitted work. Jeffrey A Zonder reports personal fees and/or grants from Janssen, Takeda, Regeneron, Amgen, Intellia, Eidos, Alnylam, Oncopeptides, BMS, and Caelum, outside the submitted work. Mehul Dalal is a salaried employee of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical International Co. Joseph R Mikhael has received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Karyopharm, Celgene, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. David S Siegel has received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, GSK, Celgene, Janssen, Karyopharm and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

© 2022 Auclair et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example questions from the patient survey. (A) Example DCE question with fixed-profile choice question from the patient survey. (B) Example best-worst scaling question from the patient survey.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Conditional relative importance of a change in each attribute from the least-preferred level to the most-preferred level. (A) Patients. (B) Caregivers.

References

    1. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (NCI SEER). Cancer stat facts: multiple myeloma. Available from: . Accessed June 3, 2019.
    1. Kazandjian D. Multiple myeloma epidemiology and survival: a unique malignancy. Semin Oncol. 2016;43(6):676–681. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.11.004
    1. Nielsen LK, Jarden M, Andersen CL, Frederiksen H, Abildgaard N. A systematic review of health-related quality of life in longitudinal studies of myeloma patients. Eur J Haematol. 2017;99(1):3–17. doi:10.1111/ejh.12882
    1. Hiasa M, Okui T, Allette YM, et al. Bone pain induced by multiple myeloma is reduced by targeting V-ATPase and ASIC3. Cancer Res. 2017;77(6):1283–1295. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3545
    1. Heher EC, Rennke HG, Laubach JP, Richardson PG. Kidney disease and multiple myeloma. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(11):2007–2017. doi:10.2215/CJN.12231212
    1. Tzoran I, Brenner B, Hoffman R. Myeloma and thrombotic complications. Minerva Med. 2013;104(2):155–160.
    1. Boland E, Eiser C, Ezaydi Y, Greenfield DM, Ahmedzai SH, Snowden JA. Living with advanced but stable multiple myeloma: a study of the symptom burden and cumulative effects of disease and intensive (hematopoietic stem cell transplant-based) treatment on health-related quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013;46(5):671–680. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.11.003
    1. Muehlbacher AC, Berndt K, Schreder CH, Nuebling M. Patients’ preferences in multiple myeloma treatment: what do physicians think? Blood. 2008;112(11):2366. doi:10.1182/blood.V112.11.2366.2366
    1. Mian HS, Fiala MA, Wildes TM. Burden of treatment among older adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.clml.2020.09.010
    1. Deniz H, Inci F. The burden of care and quality of life of caregivers of leukemia and lymphoma patients following peripheric stem cell transplantation. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2015;33(3):250–262. doi:10.1080/07347332.2015.1019660
    1. Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF). MMRF CoMMpass Study. Available from: . Accessed November 7, 2019.
    1. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, 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):403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
    1. Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Technical Paper Series. Sawtooth Software Inc; 2000.
    1. Kuhfeld W. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc.; 2010.
    1. Kuhfeld W. Efficient experimental designs using computerized searches. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings; 1997:71–86.
    1. Kuhfeld W, Tobias F, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res. 1994;31:545–557. doi:10.1177/002224379403100408
    1. Sawtooth Software Inc. CBC User Manual. Sequim: Sawtooth Software; 1999.
    1. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2009.
    1. Train K, Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Dordrecht: Springer Publisher; 2005:117–134.
    1. Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
    1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI. Available from: . Accessed June 25, 2018.
    1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 21st century cures act; 2018. Available from: . Accessed June 25, 2018.
    1. Fifer S, Galinsky J, Richard S. Myeloma patient value mapping: a discrete choice experiment on myeloma treatment preferences in the UK. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1283–1293. doi:10.2147/PPA.S259612
    1. Fifer SJ, Ho KA, Lybrand S, Axford LJ, Roach S. Alignment of preferences in the treatment of multiple myeloma - a discrete choice experiment of patient, carer, physician, and nurse preferences. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):546. doi:10.1186/s12885-020-07018-6
    1. Moreau P, Pylypenko H, Grosicki S, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, Phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(5):431–440. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jun;12(6):522.PMID: 21507715. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70081-X
    1. Mansfield C, Ndife B, Chen J, Gallaher K, Ghate S. Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Future Oncol. 2019;15(11):1255–1268. doi:10.2217/fon-2018-0871
    1. Mansfield C, Masaquel A, Sutphin J, et al. Patients’ priorities in selecting chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments. Blood Adv. 2017;1(24):2176–2185. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2017007294
    1. Eek D, Krohe M, Mazar I, et al. Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1609–1621. doi:10.2147/PPA.S106629
    1. Bridges JF, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224–231. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.01.016
    1. Wilke T, Mueller S, Bauer S, et al. Treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma: which new PI-based combination treatments do patients prefer? Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2387–2396. doi:10.2147/PPA.S183187
    1. Chari A, Romanus D, DasMahapatra P, et al. Patient- reported factors in treatment satisfaction in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Oncologist. 2019;24(11):1479–1487. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0724
    1. Parsons JA, Greenspan NR, Baker NA, McKillop C, Hicks LK, Chan O. Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):264. doi:10.1186/s12885-019-5467-x
    1. Romanus D, DasMahapatra P, Hoole M, et al. Treatment satisfaction and burden of illness with oral vs injectable therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Poster presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 22nd Annual International Meeting; May 20–24, 2017; Boston, Massachusetts.
    1. Fleischer A, Heimeshoff L, Allgaier J, et al. Is PFS the right endpoint to assess outcome of maintenance studies in multiple myeloma? Results of a patient survey highlight quality-of-life as an equally important outcome measure. Blood. 2021;138(Suppl. 1):836. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-152648

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit