Purpose To capture UK societal health utility values for high-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and the disutility associated with treatment-related adverse events (AEs) to inform future cost–utility analyses. Methods A literature review, and patient and clinical expert interviews informed the development of health states characterising mHSPC symptoms and the impact of treatment-related AEs on health-related quality of life (HRQL). Three base health states were developed describing a typical patient with high-risk mHSPC: receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) [Base State 1]; receiving docetaxel plus ADT [Base State 2]; completed docetaxel and still receiving ADT whose disease has not yet progressed [Base State 3]. Six additional health states described treatment-related AEs. The health states were validated with experts and piloted with general public participants. Health state utilities were obtained using the time trade-off (TTO) method with 200 members of the UK general population. A generalised estimating equation (GEE) model was used to estimate disutility weights. Results Mean TTO scores for Base State 1 to 3 were 0.71 (SD = 0.26), 0.64 (SD = 0.27), and 0.68 (SD = 0.26), respectively, indicating that receiving docetaxel plus ADT was most impactful on HRQL. The GEE model indicated when compared to Base State 2 that the nausea and vomiting AE had the most impact on HRQL (− 0.21), while alopecia was least burdensome (− 0.04). Conclusions The study highlights the differences in utility between base health states and the significant impact of treatment-related AEs on the HRQL of patients with mHSPC. These findings underline the importance of accounting for impaired HRQL when assessing treatments for mHSPC. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-019-02117-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Background: Over the past 30 years, the healthcare industry has increasingly turned its attention to rare diseases. Regulators have emphasized the need for clinical research in this area to be patient-centered. However, there is a lack of evidence concerning whether this need is actually met. In this paper, we aim to address this gap. Methods: First, we describe the state of patient-centricity in clinical research in rare diseases based on a targeted literature review. Second, we discuss recommendations from scientific bodies on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in rare diseases. Third, we analyze data collected from EMA's and FDA's websites concerning rare disease labeling claims and data from Clinicaltrials.gov concerning the use of PRO measures in rare disease pivotal trials. Fourth, we perform an exhaustive literature review on the use of PRO measures in the pharmaceutical industry, including all phases of clinical research, observational/registry studies, and instrument development and validation. Results: There is limited information on rare disease patient engagement in study design, recruitment, and retention. None of the initiatives describing methods for developing PRO measures in rare diseases provide the clear guidance clinical researchers need. Only 17.4% of orphan drug labels contain a PRO measure. Less than half of pivotal trials in orphan drugs have a PRO measure as a primary or a secondary endpoint. Although the number of publications about PRO measures in rare diseases has risen in the past fifteen years, our results indicate that substantial improvements are needed to achieve patient-centricity. Conclusions: The nature and extent of patient engagement in rare disease research is under-documented. The current paradigm for developing and using PRO measures in clinical research is failing to meet the needs of rare disease patients. Not only are PROs rarely used as high-level endpoints in clinical trials or taken into account in labeling claims, they are also under-researched overallthere are too few measures for the multitude of rare diseases. We call for a clear guidance on patient engagement and suggest a realistic approach to the adaptation of PRO strategy to the specific context of clinical research in rare diseases.

Purpose Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME) patients treated with intravitreally injected anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monotherapies achieve lower vision improvements compared with patients in clinical trials. This qualitative research study aimed to better understand the real-world anti-VEGF treatment experience from nAMD and DME patients’, caregivers’, and retina specialists’ perspectives. Methods One-time, semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted with adult patients with nAMD or DME treated with anti-VEGF injections for ≥12 months, their caregivers, and experienced retina specialists. Interview transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic analysis approach. Results A total of 49 nAMD and 46 DME patients, 47 nAMD and 33 DME caregivers, and 62 retina specialists were interviewed in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Most (79%) patients and caregivers reported disruptions to their routine on the day before, the day of, or the day after anti-VEGF injection. Seven nAMD patients (14%) and 14 DME patients (30%) reported having missed an injection visit. The most frequently reported driver for adherence for patients was the doctor–patient relationship (n=66, 70%), whereas for caregivers, it was the ease of booking an appointment (n=25, 32%). Retina specialists reported patient education on the treatment (n=28, 45%) as the most important driver. Treatment barriers could be grouped into four categories: tolerability, clinical factors, logistical parameters and human factors. The most frequently reported barrier to adherence for patients and caregivers was related to side effects (pain/discomfort/irritation: n=63, 67% of patients; n=52, 66% of caregivers), whereas for retina specialists it was logistical parameters (travel logistics: n=44, 71%). Conclusion This study highlights the importance of the doctor–patient relationship and patient education as key drivers, and treatment tolerability and logistics as key barriers to treatment adherence. Improved doctor–patient relationship/communication and patient education together with new therapies offering convenience, long-acting effectiveness, and better tolerability may improve treatment adherence.

BackgroundAnecdotal reports suggest that insulin degludec (IDeg) may offer unique health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits. As the nature of these benefits remain unclear, this study utilized qualitative research methods to investigate and elucidate the experience of “feeling better” after initiating IDeg.MethodsTwenty adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who reported “feeling better” on IDeg for > 3 months participated in 90-min interviews. One focus group and nine telephone interviews were conducted at two sites in the United States (US) and one focus group was conducted in Switzerland. Patients were ≥ 18 years of age, did not take mealtime insulin, and had switched to IDeg from another basal insulin. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated (Swiss German). Utilizing grounded theory, transcripts were analyzed by sorting quotes into concepts using thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants' mean age was 66 years and the average duration of T2D was 17.6 years. Mean duration of IDeg use was 1.45 years. Four major factors were identified as key contributors to patients’ sense of “feeling better”: 1) reduced sense of diabetes as burdensome and requiring excessive attention; 2) enhanced feelings of adaptability and freedom; 3) heightened sense of security, especially regarding concerns about hypoglycemia; and 4) greater sense of physical well-being (greater energy/less fatigue). Content saturation was achieved. Generally, patients from the US sites were more focused on medical results than Swiss patients, who were more likely to identify IDeg’s effect on overall HRQoL. A limitation of the study was that the population was primarily white, > 60 and otherwise healthy (no comorbid physical or mental condition).ConclusionsA group of patients with T2D, who had switched to IDeg from another basal insulin, reported HRQoL benefits which were attributed to both diabetes-specific improvements (feeling less burdened by day-to-day diabetes demands) and non-specific gains (greater energy). The conclusions may have limited transferability due to the characteristics of the sample population and further research is needed.

Background While many studies of effective hereditary angioedema (HAE) therapy have demonstrated improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using validated instruments, specific reasons behind the improved scores have never been investigated using qualitative methods. A non-interventional, qualitative research study was designed to investigate the reasons for improvements in HRQoL while using effective prophylaxis, in this case subcutaneous C1INH (C1INH[SC]) replacement therapy. Methods Adult patients with HAE-C1INH type 1 or 2 who had been using C1INH(SC) for ≥ 3 consecutive months were recruited through four HAE specialty practices in the US to participate in a 60-min phone interview performed by a trained qualitative research specialist (ICON plc) using a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions developed with the Angioedema Quality of Life (AE-QoL) items in mind. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis methods to identify concepts (specific symptoms/impacts) and themes (higher-level categories grouping related concepts). A cross-mapping exercise was performed between interview-identified concepts and items included in the AE-QoL. Results Fourteen patients were interviewed and included in the analysis (age range, 28–82 years [mean 47.5 years]; 64% female; 93% white). In 10 interviews, patients mentioned having no or nearly no HAE attacks, no longer feeling limited by HAE, less HAE-related anxiety/worry and depression, an improved ability to travel, fewer emergency room/hospital visits, and ease of administration of C1INH(SC), including not requiring assistance from others. Other commonly expressed concepts included: increased feelings of confidence, independence, optimism, and normalcy; less absence from work/school; better productivity; improved sleep and energy; healthier family relationships; and improved cognition. While all AE-QoL items emerged from patient interviews, a number of identified concepts were not addressed by the AE-QoL, including sensitivity to various potential attack-triggers (e.g., stress/anxiety, sports), attack frequency, not having to cancel social plans, improvements in ability to perform day-to-day tasks, and a lower burden from medical visits. Conclusions From these interviews, a large number of common themes and concepts emerged: a greater sense of freedom and normalcy, increased productivity, and improved interpersonal relationships while using convenient and effective prophylaxis. These findings provide insights into real-world experiences and the many facets of HRQoL that are important to patients with HAE-C1INH.