Background Therapy options for mesalamine-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) include immunosuppressive medications or surgery. Chronic immunosuppressive therapy increases risks of infection and cancer, whereas surgery produces a permanent change in bowel function. We sought to quantify the willingness of patients with UC to accept the risks of chronic immunosuppression to avoid colectomy. Methods We conducted a state-of-the-art discrete-choice experiment among 293 patients with UC who were offered a choice of medication or surgical treatments with different features. Random parameters logit was used to estimate patients’ willingness to accept trade-offs among treatment features in selecting surgery versus medical treatment. Results A desire to avoid surgery and the surgery type (ostomy versus J-pouch) influenced patients’ choices more than a specified range of 10-year mortality risks from lymphoma or infection, or disease activity (mild versus remission). To avoid an ostomy, patients were willing to accept a >5% 10-year risk of dying from lymphoma or infection from medical therapy, regardless of medication efficacy. However, data on patients’ stated choice indicated perceived equivalence between J-pouch surgery and incompletely effective medical therapy. Patient characteristics and disease history influenced patients’ preferences regarding surgery versus medical therapy. Conclusions Patients with UC are willing to accept relatively high risks of fatal complications from medical therapy to avoid a permanent ostomy and to achieve durable clinical remission. However, patients view J-pouch surgery, but not permanent ileostomy, as an acceptable therapy for refractory UC in which medical therapy is unable to induce a durable remission.

Decisions regarding the development, regulation, sale, and utilization of pharmaceutical and medical interventions require an evaluation of the balance between benefits and risks. Such evaluations are subject to two fundamental challenges-measuring the clinical effectiveness and harms associated with the treatment, and determining the relative importance of these different types of outcomes. In some ways, determining the willingness to accept treatment-related risks in exchange for treatment benefits is the greater challenge because it involves the individual subjective judgments of many decision makers, and these decision makers may draw different conclusions about the optimal balance between benefits and risks. In response to increasing demand for benefit-risk evaluations, researchers have applied a variety of existing welfare-theoretic preference methods for quantifying the tradeoffs decision makers are willing to accept among expected clinical benefits and risks. The methods used to elicit benefit-risk preferences have evolved from different theoretical backgrounds. To provide some structure to the literature that accommodates the range of approaches, we begin by describing a welfare-theoretic conceptual framework underlying the measurement of benefit-risk preferences in pharmaceutical and medical treatment decisions. We then review the major benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods in the empirical literature and provide a brief overview of the studies using each of these methods. The benefit-risk preference methods described in this overview fall into two broad categories: direct-elicitation methods and conjoint analysis. Rating scales (6 studies), threshold techniques (9 studies), and standard gamble (2 studies) are examples of direct elicitation methods. Conjoint analysis studies are categorized by the question format used in the study, including ranking (1 study), graded pairs (1 study), and discrete choice (21 studies). The number of studies reviewed here demonstrates that this body of research already is substantial, and it appears that the number of benefit-risk preference studies in the literature will continue to increase. In addition, benefit-risk preference-elicitation methods have been applied to a variety of healthcare decisions and medical interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, surgical and medical procedures, and diagnostics, as well as resource-allocation decisions such as facility placement. While preference-elicitation approaches may differ across studies, all of the studies described in this review can be used to provide quantitative measures of the tradeoffs patients and other decision makers are willing to make between benefits and risks of medical interventions. Eliciting and quantifying the preferences of decision makers allows for a formal, evidence-based consideration of decision-makers' values that currently is lacking in regulatory decision making. Future research in this area should focus on two primary issues-developing best-practice standards for preferenc...

IBD patients are willing to accept high levels of lymphoma and serious infection risk to maintain disease remission. These preferences are congruent with the treatment paradigms emphasizing mucosal healing and early aggressive therapy and highlight patients' strong preferences for therapies resulting in durable remission of at least 5 years.

This study clarifies the patient perspective in therapeutic choices for advanced PD. These findings may help improve communication between patients and providers and also provide evidence on patient preferences to inform regulatory and access decisions.