Understanding Patient Preferences and Unmet Needs in Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH): Insights from a Qualitative Online Bulletin Board Study

Nigel S Cook, Sarthak H Nagar, Akanksha Jain, Maria-Magdalena Balp, Miriam Mayländer, Olivia Weiss, Satabdi Chatterjee, Nigel S Cook, Sarthak H Nagar, Akanksha Jain, Maria-Magdalena Balp, Miriam Mayländer, Olivia Weiss, Satabdi Chatterjee

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this work was to understand how patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) perceive their disease, unmet needs, and expectations regarding future treatment through online bulletin board (OBB) qualitative research.

Methods: OBB is an asynchronous online qualitative market research tool that provides an open forum for interactive discussion among participants. Patients with NASH were recruited via physician referral and completed a screener questionnaire to ensure their eligibility and willingness to participate. A trained moderator managed the discussion that allowed open answers and responses to other participants' posts. Patient responses were analyzed using a combination of different qualitative analytical tools.

Results: The OBB ran for 4 days and included 16 patients (n = 8, UK; n = 8, US) with NASH (fibrosis stages F1-F3) and comorbidities including diabetes/prediabetes (n = 9) and obesity (n = 12). The key insights were (1) patients with NASH have a poor understanding of the disease, its progression, and management-they feel a lack of adequate educational support from their physicians; (2) diagnosis of NASH is incidental in most cases, mainly because patients fail to spontaneously associate their signs or symptoms with their liver condition; (3) comorbidities (obesity and diabetes) are more concerning to patients than NASH; and (4) patients perceive that NASH impacts their social life and work performance in more advanced stages.

Conclusions: This OBB provided valuable patient insights into NASH disease perception and management and revealed unmet need areas. In light of no approved therapies, these patient insights can inform early drug development strategies and stakeholder discussions on NASH.

Funding: Novartis Pharma AG, Basel.

Keywords: Disease education; NASH; Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis; OBB; Online bulletin board; Patient perspective; Patient-based evidence; Qualitative research; Unmet need.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Symptoms mentioned by patients

References

    1. Kopec KL, Burns D. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a review of the spectrum of disease, diagnosis, and therapy. Nutr Clin Pract. 2011;26:565–576. doi: 10.1177/0884533611419668.
    1. LaBrecque DR, Abbas Z, Anania F, et al. World Gastroenterology Organisation global guidelines: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:467–473.
    1. Younossi ZM, Blissett D, Blissett R, et al. The economic and clinical burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States and Europe. Hepatology. 2016;64:1577–1586. doi: 10.1002/hep.28785.
    1. Younossi ZM, Henry L. Economic and quality-of-life implications of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1245–1253. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0316-5.
    1. Younossi ZM, Zheng L, Stepanova M, Henry L, Venkatesan C, Mishra A. Trends in outpatient resource utilizations and outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49:222–227. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000071.
    1. Sayiner M, Otgonsuren M, Cable R, et al. Variables associated with inpatient and outpatient resource utilization among Medicare beneficiaries with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with or without cirrhosis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51:254–260.
    1. Younossi ZM, Henry L, Bush H, Mishra A. Clinical and economic burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clin Liver Dis. 2018;22:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cld.2017.08.001.
    1. Kennedy-Martin T, Bae JP, Paczkowski R, Freeman E. Health-related quality of life burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a robust pragmatic literature review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2:28. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0052-7.
    1. Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24:9–18. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091.
    1. LaVela SL, Gallan A. Evaluation and measurement of patient experience. Patient Exp J. 2014;1:28–36. doi: 10.1177/237437431400100206.
    1. Rolland SE, Parmentier G. The benefit of social media: bulletin board focus groups as a tool for co-creation. Int J Mark Res. 2013;55:809–827. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2013-068.
    1. Griffiths KM, Reynolds J, Vassallo S. An online, moderated peer-to-peer support bulletin board for depression: user-perceived advantages and disadvantages. JMIR Ment Health. 2015;2:e14. doi: 10.2196/mental.4266.
    1. Schwarzer R, Satow L. Online intervention engagement predicts smoking cessation. Prev Med. 2012;55:233–236. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.006.
    1. Ikunaga A, Nath SR, Skinner KA. Internet suicide in Japan: a qualitative content analysis of a suicide bulletin board. Transcult Psychiatry. 2013;50:280–302. doi: 10.1177/1363461513487308.
    1. Thomas C, Wootten A, Robinson P. The experiences of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer: results from an online focus group. Eur J Cancer Care. 2013;22:522–529. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12058.
    1. Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology. 1996;24:289–293. doi: 10.1002/hep.510240201.
    1. Humphrey L, Willgoss T, Trigg A, et al. A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;1:9. doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6.
    1. Im E-O, Chee W. Practical guidelines for qualitative research using online forums. Comput Inform Nurs. 2012;30:604.
    1. Noyes J, Hannes K, Booth A, et al. Qualitative and implementation evidence and Cochrane reviews. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, pp 1–26. Retrieved from . Accessed 23 Sept 2018.
    1. Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JF. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: an application of patient-centered health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:35–41. doi: 10.1017/S0266462309090059.
    1. van Kammen J, Jansen CW, Bonsel GJ, Kremer JA, Evers JL, Wladimiroff JW. Technology assessment and knowledge brokering: the case of assisted reproduction in the Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:302–306. doi: 10.1017/S026646230605118X.
    1. van der Ham AJ, van Erp N, Broerse JE. Monitoring and evaluation of patient involvement in clinical practice guideline development: lessons from the Multidisciplinary Guideline for Employment and Severe Mental Illness, the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2016;19:471–482. doi: 10.1111/hex.12370.
    1. Boivin A, Lehoux P, Lacombe R, Burgers J, Grol R. Involving patients in setting priorities for healthcare improvement: a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2014;9:24. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-24.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7:387–395. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0.
    1. Vilar-Gomez E, Martinez-Perez Y, Calzadilla-Bertot L, et al. Weight loss through lifestyle modification significantly reduces features of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:367–378.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.005.
    1. Satapathy SK, Sanyal AJ. Epidemiology and natural history of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Semin Liver Dis. 2015;35(03):221–235. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1562943.
    1. Werner KT, Perez ST. Role of nurse practitioners in the management of cirrhotic patients. J Nurse Pract. 2012;8(10):816–821. doi: 10.1016/j.nurpra.2012.08.016.
    1. Hearn C, Ellington BJ, Jones R. The role of the nurse practitioner in the management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2018;41(5):424–426. doi: 10.1097/SGA.0000000000000394.
    1. Chalasani N, Younossi Z, Lavine JE, et al. The diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: practice guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology. 2018;67:328–357. doi: 10.1002/hep.29367.
    1. National Guideline Centre (UK). Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: assessment and management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK); 2016.
    1. Byrne CD, Targher G. NAFLD: a multisystem disease. J Hepatol. 2015;62:S47–S64. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.12.012.
    1. Kennedy-Martin T, Bae JP, Paczkowski R, Freeman E. Health-related quality of life burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a robust pragmatic literature review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2:28. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0052-7.
    1. Palsgrove AHS, Ferguson B, Cheng R, Dombroski J, Cole JC. PRM130—Development of a conceptual framework for assessing disease-specific patient-reported outcomes in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. In: Presented at the ISPOR 21st annual international meeting May 21–25, 2016; Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, USA
    1. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, et al. Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1898–1906. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.084.
    1. Fedchuk L, Nascimbeni F, Pais R, et al. Performance and limitations of steatosis biomarkers in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:1209–1222. doi: 10.1111/apt.12963.
    1. Landskroner K, Walda S, Weiss O, Pallapotu V, Cook N. VP161 identification of needs of pigmented villonodular synovitis patients using online bulletin board. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(S1):222–223. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317003981.
    1. Cook NS, Tripathi P, Weiss O, Walda S, George AT, Bushell A. Patient needs, perceptions and attitudinal drivers associated with obesity: a qualitative online bulletin board study. Poster presented at: ISPOR Europe [PSY209]; Nov 10–14, 2018; Barcelona, Spain.
    1. Cook NS, Gey J, Oezel B, et al. Sleep disturbance and fatigue as consequences of cough and mucus production in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: insights from a patient online bulletin board study. Poster presented at: ISPOR Europe [PRS98]; Nov 10–14, 2018; Barcelona, Spain.
    1. Cook NS, Gey J, Oezel B, et al. Impact of cough and mucus on the emotional and psychosocial wellbeing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative patient online bulletin board study. Poster presented at: ISPOR Europe [PRS99]; Nov 10–14, 2018; Barcelona, Spain.
    1. Hammarberg K, Kirkman M, De Lacey S. Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(3):498–501. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev334.
    1. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere