A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Abstract

Background Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders' treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks. Objective The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders' preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results. Methods A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants' preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken. Results A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%). Conclusions DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants' risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.

Experience of COPD and Asthma Patients in Abuja: Using Questionnaire and Spirometry

“…Of these characteristics, the degree of dyspnoea was the most important determinant for the impaired quality of life in general as well as in the questionnaire. These findings are in line with the literature [1,[10][11][12]. In this population (mild to moderate disease severity as expressed in FEV I , but with medication use by most patients) the greater part of the variation in the quality of life is determined using the questionnaire.…”

Investigating the rationale for COPD maintenance therapy prescription across Europe, findings from a multi-country study

“…While current COPD management and prescription, as well as the overuse of ICS are well described in Europe [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] , there is limited knowledge on the healthcare professionals' motivations for the treatment decision. This study aims to understand general practitioners' (GP) and pulmonologists' rationale about COPD care from a holistic perspective.…”

Real-life effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone for symptomatic relief of cough after switching from inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist therapy in patients with asthma: REACH study design

“…However, the clinical question regarding the best option for residual symptoms, the most important attribute for patients with asthma using inhaler medications [21], still remains unresolved due to the lack of evidence directly comparing the effectiveness among these stepup options. Thus, in this REACH (Real-life effectiveness of Enerzair on Asthmatic CougH) study, we will address the clinical question of whether once-daily (o.d.)…”

“…A network meta-analysis that compared the benefit of add-on LAMA versus increased doses of ICS reported that addition of LAMA was more effective in improving lung function, while increasing doses of ICS were more effective in reducing asthma exacerbations [ 20 ]. However, the clinical question regarding the best option for residual symptoms, the most important attribute for patients with asthma using inhaler medications [ 21 ], still remains unresolved due to the lack of evidence directly comparing the effectiveness among these step-up options. Thus, in this REACH (Real-life effectiveness of Enerzair on Asthmatic CougH) study, we will address the clinical question of whether once-daily IND/GLY/MF medium-dose (150/50/80 μg) is superior to high-dose ICS/LABA for effectiveness against the most burdensome symptom (cough) in patients with asthma [ 1 ].…”